THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BILL FISHER

What We Left Behind in Iraq

2012-01-28T13:40:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Human Rights Watch is charging that, despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy, the reality is that it left behind a “budding police state” -- cracking down harshly during 2011 on freedom of expression and assembly by intimidating, beating, and detaining activists, demonstrators, and journalists.

The organization’s Middle East and North Africa director, Sarah Leah Whitson, warns that “Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism as its security forces abuse protesters, harass journalists, and torture detainees.”

Its World Report 2012 attributes the downward trajectory to the security services of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki” and armed gangs.

The report notes that in February, HRW “uncovered a secret detention facility controlled by elite security forces who report to the military office of the Prime Minister. The report added, “The same elite divisions controlled Camp Honor, a separate facility in Baghdad where detainees were tortured with impunity.”

The 676-page report report says, “Given the violent forces resisting the “Arab Spring,” the international community has an important role to play in assisting the birth of rights-respecting democracies in the region.”

The report documents a wide range of human rights abuses. For example, it says, “In the weeks before the last convoy of US troops left Iraq on December 18, Iraqi security forces rounded up hundreds of Iraqis accused of being former Baath Party members, most of whom remain in detention without charge.”

The pullout of U.S. troops has been marked by an “apolitical crisis and a series of terrorist attacks targeting civilians that have rocked the country.” But Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence is not new and is unconnected to the US exit. A number of US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks refer to the torture of prisoners in Iraqi custody and of knowledge of some of it by US troops.

The annual report, which covers the state of human rights in some 90 countries, says that, during nationwide demonstrations in Iraq to “protest widespread corruption and demand greater civil and political rights,” security forces “violently dispersed protesters, killing at least 12 on February 25, and injuring more than 100. Baghdad security forces beat unarmed journalists and protesters that day, smashing cameras and confiscating memory cards.”

Earlier in the year, “in one of the worst incidents, government-backed thugs armed with wooden planks, knives, and iron pipes, beat and stabbed peaceful protesters and sexually molested female demonstrators as security forces stood by and watched, sometimes laughing at the victims,” the report charges.

In May, the report says, the Council of Ministers approved a Law on the Freedom of Expression of Opinion, Assembly, and Peaceful Demonstration, which “authorizes officials to restrict freedom of assembly to protect ‘the public interest’ and in the interest of ‘general order or public morals.’ This law still awaits parliamentary approval.

HRW comments that freedom of expression fared little better as “security forces routinely abused journalists covering demonstrations, using threats, arbitrary arrests, beatings, and harassment, and confiscating or destroying their equipment.”

On September 8, the report says, “An unknown assailant shot to death Hadi al-Mahdi, a popular radio journalist often critical of government corruption and social inequality, at his home in Baghdad. Immediately before his death, HRW says al-Mahdi had received several phone and text message threats not to return to Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, which was the focal point for the weekly demonstrations.”

Earlier, after attending the February 25 “Day of Anger” mass demonstration, security forces arrested, blindfolded, and severely beat him and three other journalists during a subsequent interrogation,” HRW says.

In January 2012, HRW says it “observed that Iraqi authorities had successfully curtailed the Tahrir Square anti-government demonstrations by flooding the weekly protests with pro-government supporters and undercover security agents. Dissenting activists and independent journalists for the most part said that they no longer felt safe attending the demonstrations.”

The report continues, “Prison brutality, including torture in detention facilities, was a major problem throughout the year. In February, Human Rights Watch uncovered, within the Camp Justice military base in Baghdad, a secret detention facility controlled by elite security forces who report to al-Maliki’s military office.”

Beginning in late 2010, the report charges, Iraqi authorities transferred more than 280 detainees to the facility, which was controlled by the Army’s 56th Brigade and the Counter-Terrorism Service.

HRW added that “the same elite divisions controlled Camp Honor, a separate facility in Baghdad where detainees were tortured with impunity. More than a dozen former Camp Honor detainees told Human Rights Watch that detainees were held incommunicado and in inhumane conditions, many for months at a time. Detainees said interrogators beat them; hung them upside down for hours at a time; administered electric shocks to various body parts, including the genitals; and repeatedly put plastic bags over their heads until they passed out from asphyxiation.”

HRW also weighed in on the human rights situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. In what it called the “Silenced Spring,” HRW’s Samer Muscati recounts that the Kurdistan Regional Government “promised a new era of freedom for Iraqi Kurds, but it seems no more respectful of Kurdish rights to free speech than the government that preceded it.”

He added, “In a time when the Middle East is erupting in demands to end repression, the Kurdish authorities are trying to stifle and intimidate critical journalism.”

In March, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 20 journalists in Kurdistan covering the protests and found that security forces and their proxies routinely repress journalists through threats, arbitrary arrests, beatings, and harassment, and by confiscating and destroying their equipment.

And Iraqi authorities appear to be pulling no punches. Zana Ali Ghazi, 32, a reporter for the Kurdistan News Network (KNN), a satellite television channel affiliated with the Kurdish opposition party, Goran, said that while he was trying to report on a protest in the city of Saeed Sadiq on March 15, “eight armed men, some in uniform, cracked three of his ribs and beat him with wooden clubs and Kalashnikovs until he lost consciousness. ‘They told me that if I continued to cover this type of news, they would kill me’,” Ghazi told HRW.

Kurdistan authorities have repeatedly tried to silence Livin Magazine, one of Iraqi Kurdistan's leading independent publications, and other media. The international community should end its silence and condemn these widening attacks, Human Rights Watch said.

A Livin reporter told Human Rights Watch that when he called the Minister of Peshmerga (Kurdistan security forces), on April 24, the minister threatened Livin's editor, Mira, with death. The reporter says the conversation is on tape but that no one from the Iraqi authorities had made any move to investigate.

In Sulaimaniya on the night of May 11, security forces detained and beat a Kurdistan News Network reporter, Bryar Namiq, breaking his hand.

In Arbil, two journalists, who HRW says are afraid to be named for fear of reprisal, charged that on May 18 eight men in civilian clothes chased after them in late April. The men appeared in two vehicles on the street just before the journalists were supposed to meet with a regional official who had asked for a meeting with some members of the media.

HRW says the journalists believe that the men were plainclothes security forces who were aware of the meeting and were trying to kidnap them.

The HRW Report says that Soran Umar, a protest organizer and freelance journalist, has been in hiding since April 19. "I have not slept at home since then," he told Human Rights Watch on May 17. "My sin is that I am criticizing the undemocratic acts of KRG and the two ruling parties, that is all. The security forces have tried to kidnap me, and they have ordered my arrest. They even tried to kidnap my son."

These examples appear to be a small fraction of abuses carried out by Iraqi government authorities against journalists -- Reporters Without Borders has tallied 44 physical attacks against media workers and outlets and 23 arrests.

Which prompted this thought from HRW’s Sarah Leah Whitson: "Eight years after the United States removed Saddam Hussein in the name of protecting the rights of Kurds, it is standing by silently as the government it
helped to install in Kurdistan abuses and represses the population. US President Obama noted in his speech on May 20 the flourishing democracy in Iraq, but the reality is that government-sponsored fear and
repression continue to fester there."

2012-01-28T13:32:00.000-05:00

2012-01-28T13:31:00.000-05:00

The Man Who Refuses Silence

2012-01-24T08:43:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

The Spanish Judge whose work triggered the investigation that nabbed Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet back in 1998 believes that Spain could bring charges against six Bush Jr. administration officials for clearing the way for the use of torture during the Iraq war – but he is being blocked by charges making him the culprit.

On 17 January 2012, Al Jazeera reported that Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon had "gone on trial in the country’s supreme court on [three separate] charges of abusing judicial powers."

According to West Chester University history professor Lawrence Davidson, Spanish and US authorities want even the remotest possibility of charges against Bush Administration officials to go away – quietly. To this end Spain is attempting to silence “a very important truth-teller (who has) conducted a number of investigations into violations of international law against torture.”

The truth-teller is Baltasar Garzón Real, 57, the Spanish jurist who in 1998 obtained a request for the extradition from the UK of former Chilean president, General, Augusto Pinochet, for the alleged deaths and torture of Spanish citizens. The former dictator was undergoing medical treatment in London.

Garzón was indicted in April 2010 for exceeding his authority when investigating crimes committed by the Franco regime that were included in an amnesty, and suspended on 14 May 2010, pending trial. He has been given permission to work as a consultant at the International Criminal Court.

Garzon used the principle of universal jurisdiction to go after Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet back in 1998, and said in March 2009 that Spain could now use the same principle to bring charges against Bush Jr. officials.

He charged that, “At least four men who are Spanish citizens, and also former prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay prison, have accused the U.S. military of torturing them.”

It was at this point, Davidson claims, that the U .S. government appears to have placed Garzon in a category that would also include WIKIleaks case figures, (Pfc. Bradley) Manning and impresario Julian) Assange – “the category of the dangerous truth-teller.”

Davidson notes that the U.S. Ambassador to Spain in 2009, Eduardo Aguirre, describes his actions (in a diplomatic cable made public by Wikileaks in 2010) in relation to the Garzon investigation as follows, "...behind the scenes we have fought tooth and nail to make the charges disappear."

Davidson says the significant word here is "disappear" for “there are two approaches to suppressing an unwanted truth. The first is to create a counter-story that makes the truth appear untrue. The second is to simply suppress all evidence, all references, all interest so that the particular truth just ‘disappears’."
　
He declares that the U.S. ambassador, Eduardo Aguirre, “managed to get the cooperation of Spain’s Chief Prosecutor, Javier Zaragoza, who is quoted in another U.S. diplomatic cable (also made public by Wikileaks) to the effect that he had a plan to ‘embarrass’ Garzon into dropping his case against the Bush officials by misrepresenting Garzon’s actions in previous cases. This sounds like a bit of blackmail.”
　
However, he adds, Garzon did not relent and now he is on trial for "abusing judicial powers" in this and other cases.

Garzon and his supporters, which include almost every human rights group on the planet, claim that the charges are politically motivated and, “to be sure, the entire affair appears similar to the questionable rape charge facing Assange in Sweden.”

Davidson documents that the U.S. Ambassador to Spain in 2009, Eduardo Aguirre, described his actions (in a diplomatic cable made public by Wikileaks in 2010) in relation to the Garzon investigation. He wrote:

"...behind the scenes we have fought tooth and nail to make the charges disappear." The significant word here is "disappear" for there are two approaches to suppressing an unwanted truth. The first is to create a counter-story that makes the truth appear untrue. The second is to simply suppress all evidence, all references, all interest so that the particular truth just "disappears."

Davidson says, “This is precisely the outcome the U.S. government would like to see.”
　
He notes that Aguirre managed to get the cooperation of Spain’s Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, who is quoted in another U.S. diplomatic cable (also made public by Wikileaks), to the effect that he had a plan to "embarrass" Garzon into dropping his case against the Bush officials by misrepresenting Garzon’s actions in previous cases. “This sounds like a bit of blackmail,” Davidson says.
　
He adds that Garzon did not relent and now he is on trial for "abusing judicial powers" in this and other cases.

“Garzon and his supporters, which include almost every human rights group on the planet, claim that the charges are politically motivated and, to be sure, the entire affair appears similar to the questionable rape charge facing Assange in Sweden,” Davidson charges.

In the case of Garzon, the Spanish Public Prosecutor (different than the Chief Prosecutor) has recommended acquittal on all three charges and yet there is still serious doubt that this will happen. If he is found guilty on any of the charges, Garzon "could be banned from serving as a judge for 20 years, in what would be a career-ending blow.”

Davidson says, “This is precisely the outcome the U.S. government would like to see.”
　
The good news is that this battle to silence Garzon” has not yet intimidated all other Spanish judges.” On January 20, another Spanish judge , Pablo Rafael Gutierrez, took up the case of the former Spanish citizens who allege torture at Guantanamo Bay. This judge, again used the principle of universal jurisdiction, and noted that the United States government has consistently refused to investigate the Spanish citizen’s charges.
　
James Goldston, the executive director of Open Society Justice Initiative, described the situation this way, "These crimes [such as torture] are universal crimes and it is very clear that until the United States holds to account those responsible for these crimes, other judicial actors in other countries are going to press for accountability."

Davidson concurs. He says, “The most powerful and influential government in the world, the one with its capital in Washington, D.C., is going to fight to halt these foreign efforts. And so, we have a war that seeks to replace the truth with either lies or historical black holes.”
　
“One of the major themes of George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, is the control of information…if government can control all media and all public records it can either impose a lie as truth or simply make selected past events disappear from society’s collective memory,” Davidson recalls.

"Who controls the past...controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." Is this not what the United States government is trying to do in the case of its policy of torture: manipulate and hide the truth so people will ignore it and then forget it? And is this not what almost every country tries to do relative to their present crimes or those embedded in their pasts?
　
Davidson finds it “really amazing just how common this sort of manipulation is. And, the reason it is relatively easy for governments to get away with it is because the average man and woman cares mainly about little truths and not big ones.”

He continues: “Little truths are local truths. Don’t be misled to think that little means unimportant because that is not the case. Little truths are the truths that make possible successful daily interactions and that, of course, makes them very important indeed. Thus, one major reason life can go on relatively smoothly is that, most of the time, you can take as true what others tell you. That this is so means we can rely on friends, have stable relationships with spouses and children, and maintain successfully operating offices, business arrangements, etc. When the little truths start to become lies, these relationships break down.”
　
And finally, “Alleged big truths are the ones governments and the major media outlets tell the masses. When the U.S. government tells its citizens that unregulated capitalism will make the nation strong and prosperous, or that there must be a war to prevent Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction; when the major American media outlets tell their viewers and readers that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons or Israel is ‘just like us’," they are shaping perceptions that are not just local but regional and national. The problem is that, historically, most alleged big truths turn out to be big lies.”
　
He concludes: “Yet truth-tellers, like Manning, Assange and Garzon have good historical memories and they do notice and do care. They realize that when big truths turn out to be big lies people suffer–they suffer in the millions, bombs range down from the skies, economies falter and the public sphere of life becomes like a poisoned well. That is why accountability for the crimes hidden behind big lies is so important. That is why no government, no politician, no media organization should be allowed to manipulate the truth about the past or the present. On this the future depends.”

The Royal Stall

2012-01-21T14:30:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

While unarmed civilians die on Bahrain’s streets, the king of the tiny oil-rich nation continues to tell his people he is eager for dialogue and refuses entry to a prominent human rights champion from the U.S.

Denied a visa was Richard Sollom, deputy president of the US-Based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), who was hoping to attend the trial of doctors and nurses that treated injured protestors during months of unrest last year.

He left for Dubai, from where he told The Washington Post, “I am quite stunned. This was the first time a member of an international rights organization came to Bahrain after authorities promised to respect human rights and told us we can come and see for ourselves.

“We can see now that not much has changed,” he added.

Sollom thus became the second huan rights executive to be denied entry to Bahrain. Brian Dooley of Human Rights First, a major US-based human rights organization, applied for a visa but received a letter from Bahrain’s Minister for Human Rights and Social Development, Fatima Al Booshi, on January 11th suggesting he should delay his entry until the end of February.

In his reply, Dooley reminded the Minister that she told him on November 24th 2011 that non-government organizations (NGOs) would have access to Bahrain if they gave “five days’ notice of their arrival”. Brian informed the “Human Rights” Ministry of his proposed visit next week, on December 20th.

Bahrain’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa, also assured human rights groups that NGOs would have “unfettered access to Bahrain.”
In his letter to the Minister, Dooley also noted that, at the release of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report in November, King Hamad had assured the world that ‘any Government which has a sincere desire for reform and progress understands the benefit of objective and constructive criticism,’ and that the day of the report of the BICI report ‘turns a new page of history.’ ”

Calling this a backward step for the Kingdom, Faisal Fulad, President of the Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRWS), said: “His Majesty the King has made it clear that Bahrain has nothing to hide when he opened the country up to the world in October, facing the truth of an independent commission which reported last year’s democratic protests.”

He added: “So why are we now back to this? By not allowing a human rights activist to enter the kingdom, we are giving conflicting messages to the world that will now be asking, once again - is Bahrain a free and democratic country or not?”

He suggested a “return to an offer of talks put on the table last March” by the Crown Prince and the Deputy Supreme Commander.” Members of the opposition have made similar calls.

The Crown Prince had proposed a National Dialogue that included talks on seven key points: A parliament with full authority; a government that represents the will of the people; a review of naturalization; fair voting districts; the combating of corruption; state property; and addressing sectarian tension.

Bahrain’s King and his family are Sunni Arabs. Most of the Bahraini population consists of Shia Muslims and foreign workers. The Shias have long-standing complaints of discrimination against them in jobs, housing and social acceptance.

“Bahrain’s leadership has taken many brave steps forward in the last year to show that democracy is alive in the kingdom, but this move seems to take us back to stage one,” Fulad said, adding:

"I believe this is a time for the second phase of dialogue and to concentrate on HRH the Crown Prince's seven points. At the same time, reforms should be stronger so that people will believe reform is happening."

Meanwhile, human rights defenders, medics, students and others targeted by the Bahraini government in its crackdown on pro-democracy efforts continue to face abusive detention despite growing calls for their release.

One of those calls came from United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for the unconditional release of all Bahraini detainees imprisoned after a military trial. Human Rights First (HRF) noted that the Bahraini government had failed to comply with that request and, in fact, “is taking steps to delay the appeals of those accused.”

“Yesterday, a group of students from the University of Bahrain who were sentenced to 15 years each by the military court had their appeal hearing postponed until March. Five of them remain in Bahrain’s Jaw Prison,” said HRF’s Dooley.

“Their case and others like it make clear that Bahrain’s leaders are ignoring key calls for reform issued by Commissioner Pillay and even the Kingdom’s own Bassiouni Commission,” he said.

In addition to the students, the Bahrain regime continues to contest the appeals of others sentenced by the military court, including 20 medics who appear to have been prosecuted for treating injured protestors and telling the media about the nature and extent of injuries.

Dr. Nada Dhaif is one of the medics sentenced to 15 years after a trial in military court. Dr. Dhaif was summoned by the police for a four-hour interrogation on December 25. During that interrogation, she was warned to keep a low profile, an apparent government response to her decision to speak with the media and human rights organizations about how she and others were tortured in detention.

Dr. Dhaif told Dooley, “I am being targeted for telling the world the continuing truth about Bahrain. Members of my family are also being harassed by the regime. I have only ever advocated peaceful reform but am being threatened for my human rights advocacy.”

Local human rights activists also report ongoing concerns about treatment in custody. Hassan Oun, aged 18, was rearrested today after speaking to a local human rights organization. During previous interrogations, Oun said he was raped by a security officer.

That officer allegedly later called Oun after his release and threatened to rearrest him and rape him until he died. According to Maryam Al
Khawaja of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, Oun was recently arrested again in what she said was revenge against him for speaking to their center.

Every indication points away from the Royal Family’s willingness to engage in discussions of reform and reverse the variety of heinous human rights abuses committed by the country’s security apparatus.

For most democracies in the international community, the King’s double-dealing has triggered a profound sense of disappointment and betrayal. Hopes soared high when the King, in a first-of-a-kind move in the Middle East, commissioned and accepted a genuinely independent report prepared under the leadership of a distinguished judge from Egypt. That report found that Bahrain was guilty of unacceptable human rights violations, including widespread torture in detention.

The King urged dialogue. But that word is not being heard much these days. It seems obvious that His Highness is attempting to sandbag the world, stalling for time.

Meantime, little is being heard from the US, where President Obama finds himself between a rock and a hard place. Bahrain is of strategic importance to American interests, as it is not only a supplier of oil, but host to the US Fifth Fleet.

Bahrain has hired a small army of PR people in the US and the UK to promote the notion that the “unrest” is over. No need to worry about it anymore. These communications gurus also want to see the Bahrain Grand Prix, the Kingdom’s Formula One racing event, rescheduled. It was cancelled earlier because of the violence in the country.

But now, there is an opportunity for the folks who supervise Formula One to show the world that the unrest was never over and is far from being over now. Just last week, two children died from inhaling tear gas fired at them by the security forces.

Formula One can honor these children and demonstrate that there are things more important than money. Helping to ensure the basic rights of a people is surely one of those things. And if Bahrain really values Formula One for its tourism and economic development, that gives the organizers enormous leverage.

We need to urge them to use it.

Baradei’s Anguish

2012-01-19T11:16:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

After months of performing like Egypt’s Cinderella leader, jet-setting between Cairo and his old home in Vienna, Mohamed ElBaradei has finally reached the limits of his frustration.

At a press conference last week, ElBaradei said the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which took over from Mubarak, had governed "as if no revolution took place and no regime has fallen".

"My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a democratic framework," the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog said.

His surprise resignation came as a protest to the ruling military council's failure to put the country on the path to democracy. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, a group of the Egypt’s highest military officers, took over as “interim rulers” of the country immediately after the February 11 resignation of 30-year-dictator Hosni Mubarak, Mubarak, now 83 years old, is currently on trial along with a number of high-level political and military figures for corruption and for killing peaceful demonstrators in Tahrir Square, where the Arab Spring revolution was born.

In the pre-Tahrir Square days, ElBaradei was among prominent Egyptians constantly mentioned for the post of president, should the revolution succeed. He played a somewhat coy game during this period, expressing reservations about taking on the monumental task of leading his countrymen into a new era of non-corrupt, transparent and responsive government.

The Nobel laureate, regarded as a driving force behind the movement that forced the former president Hosni Mubarak to step down, told the Guardian newspaper that the conditions for a fair election were not in place.

With Parliamentary elections to the lower house over, and the parties of the Muslim Brotherhood and the yet more conservative Salafists winning more than enough seats to effectively control the lower body, it was highly doubtful that ElBaradei could have won enough support from the Liberal parties to gain the presidency.

But it would be a big mistake to count the Nobel-prize-winner out just yet. The historic journey along Egypt’s road to good governance has barely begun.

The polished international diplomat again called on the SCAF and their puppet civilian government to move with all possible speed to enact fundamental political reforms. The citizens of the Arab world's largest nation were "yearning desperately for economic and social change" and that without drastic improvements, a "Tunisia-style explosion" in Egypt would be unavoidable, he told the Guardian.

Nearly half of the country's 80 million citizens live on less than £1.25 a day, and despite record GDP growth the majority of the population has become poorer in real terms over the past 20 years. Unemployment is epidemic, Graduates with PhD degrees are driving taxies or working as waiters. Many of the members of the last two graduating classes of Cairo University have never held any job for which they were trained.

However, Baradei has rejected the idea of a “second revolution” – a huge gathering in Tahrir Square, much like those of the recent past – because of the very real possibility of widespread violence and death.

Rights Group Slams Governments for "Double Standard" on Arab Spring

2012-01-10T10:55:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Predicting that the current Middle East unrest would continue through 2012, Amnesty International is slamming Western governments for their tepid responses to peaceful protests, for their “double standard,” and for being more concerned with preserving their political and economic interests than with the historic changes sweeping the region.

The charges are being made in a new Amnesty report, “Year of Rebellion: State of Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa.”

The Report says, “Many powerful governments performed political somersaults or continued to ignore human rights violations in the region.” They “sought to protect their own political and economic interests” through the varying and inconsistent reactions of foreign powers saying they were looking out for their own instead of truly looking after protesters dying in pursuit of legitimate freedoms and rights.”

It says there was an initial reluctance to support the protest movements by western governments, citing the initial silence of the French government on Tunisia and the US administration on Egypt. The US supported Mubarak until his “refusal to resign risked a much deeper social revolution and a much greater threat to the status quo in the region.”

The report was also critical of the UN’s responses, despite the gross human rights violations perpetrated against peaceful protesters across the region.

Amnesty International has three million members and supporters in more than 150 countries.

It contrasted the UN Security Council’s fast response after Libya’s uprising took off, sanctioning a no-fly zone and airstrikes (which it then said surpassed its mandate to “protect civilians”), and the slow and non-existent responses when it came to Syria and Bahrain.

The report also cited the late condemnation by the Security Council of human rights violations in Yemen, saying that it urged Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh to sign a power transfer deal which granted him immunity, an act prohibited by the UN Secretary General’s directives, it argued. That deal was approved by the Yemeni parliament yesterday.

Nor did the European Union’s (EU) response escape criticism. The report said, “The initial reaction [of the EU] was limited to sanitized statements calling for restraint by all sides and negotiations.”

It added: “The EU continued its long-standing relations with repressive states in the region and opted for diplomatic advances rather than openly condemning human rights violations,”

It said that the EU’s belated offers of financial support for pro-democracy and pro-human rights – while a positive development – is seemingly being stalled by the EU.

It blamed the EU for continuing its policies that subordinated human rights to trade and energy interests, which led it to provide political and financial support to authoritarian governments in the Middle East and North Africa.

Amnesty focused special attention on what it called the “double standards” it claimed are present across all the major uprisings taking place in the Arab World in 2011.

The “disjuncture between the words and deeds of powerful governments and institutions were exposed and undermined. It can only be hoped that the year of rebellion signals an end to policies that put an illusory ‘stability.’

Mideast protests and government repression will continue through 2012, the organization predicted.

"With few exceptions, governments have failed to recognize that everything has changed," Philip Luther, Amnesty International's interim Middle East and North Africa director, said in the report.

"The protest movements across the region, led in many cases by young people and with women playing central roles, have proved astonishingly resilient in the face of sometimes staggering repression.

"They want concrete changes to the way they are governed and for those responsible for past crimes to be held to account. But persistent attempts by states to offer cosmetic changes, to push back against gains made by protesters or to simply brutalize their populations into submission betray the fact that for many governments, regime survival remains their aim," he said.

The 80-page report, which describes 2011 as “historic” and “tumultuous,” discusses the rights issue in each country where uprisings, protests and countering repression took place. Other subjects such as promoting human rights in the region and what the organization has achieved on the ground during the revolutions are also included.

Most of the countries currently in turmoil were singled out for criticism.

In Egypt, Amnesty found that the military rulers had been responsible for abuses that were "in some aspects worse than under Hosni Mubarak". About 84 people had died under violent suppression between October and December last year, while more civilians had been tried before military courts in one year than under 30 years of his rule, it said.

In Tunisia, it was "critical" that a new constitution was drafted to ensure it guaranteed protection of human rights and equality under the law, the report said.

Amnesty also criticized international powers and regional bodies for "inconsistencies" in their response to the situations in Libya, Syria and Bahrain, and of "failing to grasp the depth of the challenge to entrenched repressive rule".

The report noted that Bahrain set up acommittee to investigate what happened during the unrest and brutal crackdown, by commissioning an independent inquiry. The inquiry’s results, reported in October 2011, criticized the government for using excessive force and torture, as well as making arbitrary arrests. This critcism was accepted by the King, who vowed to make amends and punish culprits. He said that the time for action is now, while the people still have hope for a new future….”

Amnesty International, in its statement said, “The call for justice, freedom and dignity has evolved into a global demand that grows stronger every day. The genie is out of the bottle and the forces of repression cannot put it back.”

Saudis to Reinforce Crackdown on Peaceful Protesters, Amnesty Says

2012-01-09T11:24:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

The Arab Spring has been greeted in Saudi Arabia by "a new wave of repression" that saw authorities arresting and imprisoning peaceful protesters demanding political reforms. Now, the Saudi crackdown may be reinforced by a draft anti-terror law that would effectively criminalize dissent as a "terrorist crime."

In a new 61-page report, "Saudi Arabia: Repression in the Name of Security," Amnesty International (AI) said authorities have "used security concerns to justify the arrest of hundreds of people who have been imprisoned after unfair trials." The draft anti-terror law would further strip away rights from those accused of such offenses, Amnesty said.
"Peaceful protesters and supporters of political reform in the country have been targeted for arrest in an attempt to stamp out the kinds of call for reform that have echoed across the region," said Philip Luther of AI.

"While the arguments used to justify this wide-ranging crackdown may be different, the abusive practices being employed by the Saudi Arabian government are worryingly similar to those which they have long used against people accused of terrorist offenses," he said.

AI said that the government "continues to detain thousands of people, many of them without charge or trial, on terrorism-related grounds. Torture and other ill-treatment in detention remain rife." In April 2011, an Interior Ministry spokesperson said that around 5,000 people connected to the "deviant group," meaning al-Qa'ida, had been questioned and referred for trials, Amnesty said.

Meanwhile, Saudi troops continue to serve in Bahrain on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), helping the rulers of the tiny oil-rich monarchy to put an end to many months of peaceful demonstrations seeking reform.

In a statement following AI's release of the draft law, the Saudi government said it "absolutely has a responsibility to protect the public from violent attacks, but that has to be done within the boundaries of international law." It said the new draft law is designed "to assist Saudi Security forces in tackling terrorist activity."
But AI charges it would "allow the authorities to prosecute peaceful dissent as a terrorist crime."

The organization says it has obtained copies of the Draft Penal Law for Terrorism Crimes and Financing of Terrorism. It says, "If passed it would pave the way for even the smallest acts of peaceful dissent to be branded terrorism and risk massive human rights violations."

A Saudi Arabian government security committee reviewed the draft law in June but it is not known when or if it might be passed.

AI says that since February, when sporadic demonstrations began - in defiance of a permanent national ban on protests -- the government carried out a crackdown that included the arrest of hundreds of mostly Shi'a Muslims in the restive eastern province. Since March over 300 people who took part in peaceful protests in al-Qatif, al-Ahsa and Awwamiya have been detained.

Khaled al-Johani, 40, the only man to demonstrate on the March 11 "Day of Rage" in Riyadh, was swiftly arrested. He told journalists he was frustrated by media censorship in Saudi Arabia. Charged with supporting a protest and communicating with foreign media, he is believed to have been held in solitary confinement for two months, Amnesty said.
"Nine months later, he remains in detention and has not been tried. A number of people who have spoken up in support of protests or reform have been arrested. Sheikh Tawfiq Jaber Ibrahim al-'Amr, a Shi'a cleric, was arrested for the second time this year in August for calling for reform at a mosque. He has been charged with "inciting public opinion," AI said.

On November 22, 16 men, including nine prominent reformists, were sentenced to five to 30 years in prison on charges they formed a secret organization, attempted to seize power, financed terrorism as well as incitement against the King and money laundering.
Amnesty says their trial, which began in May, was grossly unfair. "The defendants were blindfolded and handcuffed and their lawyer was not allowed to enter the court for the first three sessions," AI said. "Unless it were radically altered, the proposed draft anti-terror law would make the current situation even worse, as it would entrench and make legal the very worst practices we have documented," according to AI's Luther.

The draft law allows for suspects to be held in incommunicado detention for up to 120 days, or for longer periods - potentially indefinitely - if authorized by a specialized court.
Under the draft law, terrorist crimes would include such actions as "endangering...national unity", "halting the basic law or some of its articles", or "harming the reputation of the state or its position".Violations of the law would carry harsh punishments. The death penalty would be applied to cases of taking up arms against the state or for any "terrorist crimes" that result in death.

Amnesty charges that a number of other key provisions in the draft law run counter to Saudi Arabia's international legal obligations, including those under the UN Convention against Torture.

Amnesty is calling on King Abdullah to "reconsider this law and ensure that his people's legitimate right to freedom of expression is not curtailed in the name of fighting terrorism."

Prof. Chip Pitts of Stanford and Oxford, former Chair of Amnesty International USA, commented on the proposed new law. "Having just renewed the USA Patriot Act, the United States has sadly continued to set the stage for and model such counterproductive, harsh, and illegal approaches, and undermined its ability to credibly and effectively question them," he said, adding:

"The myopic and reactionary approach taken in the new Saudi draft law, which would violate the country's obligations under international human rights law, shows that the Kingdom is battening down the hatches and preparing for a long period of continued feudal rule that contradicts the very premises of expanding human rights that have swept the world in recent centuries."

"Neglecting the lessons of the Arab Spring - that repression ultimately breeds instability and violence - the Saudi regime apparently prefers to look backwards to an error of medieval justice and absolute monarchical power which brooks no dissent. Such backwardness condemns the Saudi regime to greater isolation over time, and the Saudi people and businesses to constricted options for economic and social development, unless wiser heads prevail and move toward more progressive instead of regressive laws," he said.
Prof. Lawrence Davidson, who teaches history at West Chester University, sees the proposed new law in its longer-term context.

He said, "Laws like this essentially blur the lines between the criminal and the authorities. It makes it much harder to tell who is who. Presently, there are two aspects to Saudi power: Force of questionable legitimacy and the ability to buy the loyalty of a portion of their population. In a couple of generations the latter may well go away and then former will probably prove insufficient. This law will not lessen the probability that last of the Saudi royal line dying in exile."

Too Good to be True? Yep!

2012-01-08T11:39:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

It was going to be a real long-shot, with million-to-one odds.

It was going to be the first time in living memory that the King of a country commissioned and funded a truly independent report on the widespread civil strife taking place in his country, personally heard the authors tell him his army was killing its own people and the police were torturing citizens they took into custody.

More amazing still, the King expressed ignorance of these dreadful actions, accepted the report, and promised reform.

As Steve Royston commented in Voice of the Middle East, “The report is extraordinary in that it deals with events so recent. In the United Kingdom it took a quarter of a decade for the government to commission an inquiry into the events in Londonderry known as Bloody Sunday. The Chilcot Inquiry into the circumstances of the Iraq war of 2003 is not due to report until 2012. Truth and reconciliation commissions in a number of countries where human rights abuses have taken place typically review events from many years in the past.”

The report, prepared by a team headed by a distinguished Egyptian judge, Cherif Bassiouni, was presented to the Sunni monarch, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, on November 23rd 2011. Today is January 7, 2012. What has happened since?

A 15-year-old teenager was killed by a tear gas canister manufactured in the US and sold to the Bahraini regime. The boy was shot at close range by security forces during an anti-regime protest in Sitra, a town southeast of the capital Manama, on the last day of 2011.
Later, his funeral turned violent after security forces fired tear gas to disperse mourners. Dozens of people have been killed since the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in February 2011.

An infant and a mother died from inhaling toxic tear gas fumes. Saudi- backed riot police attacked teenage protester stabbed him with a knife during a protest in Malkiya village.
Thousands have been arrested and many of them suffered torture at the hands of the police. Even more thousands have been fired from their jobs for participating in peaceful demonstrations. Students have been dismissed from the University for the same reason.

A large number of doctors and nurses have been imprisoned and sentenced to absurdly long sentences for providing hospital care for people who were injured in the protests.
The country’s leading opposition party said, the courts “are still sentencing the victims with harsh verdicts in cases related to the right of speech and the right of peaceful rallying, no week passes by without a number of victims whose right of freedom and physical integrity are being violated by these verdicts.”
All of those arrested and imprisoned are Shia Muslims, as it the majority of the Bahraini population.

There is more, much more that could be written about the brutality and the mindless roundups of ordinary Bahrainis who started their campaign seeking reforms from the King, but hardened into non-negotiable abdication when the King – or whoever in the Palace is giving the orders – continually ramped up the campaign of repression.

But the Royal Family was not idle. It hired Miami police chief John Timoney, known for his trampling on civil rights of protesters to the 2003 Free Trade Area of the Americas.
It also hired a covey of high-priced public relations firms and communications consultants to do what PR people do: attempt to spin a positive narrative of the All the King’s Men that would supplant the images of soldiers firing tear gas and live ammo on peaceful demonstrators, including women and children.

One of the early fruits of this initiative was an Op-Ed in the conservative Washington Times. The piece appeared under the byline of the King himself. His piece extolled the economic opportunities awaiting foreign investors in peaceful Bahrain. Of the current conflict, he wrote, “Unfortunately, the legitimate demands of the opposition were hijacked by extremist elements with ties to foreign governments in the region.”

But then Justin Elliott at Salon reported that a top executive at Lockheed Martin recently worked with lobbyists for Bahrain to place the op-ed. But the newspaper didn’t bother to tell its readers of the role of the regime’s lobbyists. So how could they know that the pro-Bahrain opinion column they were reading was published at the behest of … Bahrain?

The link between Bahrain and Lockheed Martin isn’t complicated: Each year defense contractor sells hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military hardware to the tiny island kingdom. This was Washington-style Customer Service 101.

The Crown Prince has also been active, traveling to Washington for consultations with the US State Department and a meeting with President Obama, for whom Bahrain has a special strategic priority because it’s the home of the US Fifth Fleet (the fleet now in the center of the dispute with Iran over access to the Strait of Hormuz, in the Persian Gulf).

Obama, seeming to walk on eggs for fear of offending America’s friends, the Saudis, evenhandedly expressed the hope that the government and the people of Bahrain would be able to resolve their differences peacefully.

Seemingly, the only concrete action taken by the Obama Administration was to hold up a scheduled shipment of arms to Bahrain.
So, it seems to me there is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the current perilous situation in Bahrain: The promise of dialogue and reform from His Majesty is rapidly gaining all the credibility of one of Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh’s resignation letters.

Who Puts Kids in the Slammer for Life? We Do!

2012-01-07T14:15:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

You probably know that the United States has more people in the slammer than any other country in the world. The staggering number is 2.3 million. China, which has four times as many people as the US, is a distant second with 1.6 million prisoners.

What you may not know is that the US also tops the charts in the numbers of youth offenders serving life without parole sentences in adult US prisons. The score? The world: 0; the US: 2,570.

Right. The US is only country in the world that incarcerates people in adult prisons for crimes they committed when they were below the age of 18.

Furthermore, those prisoners experience conditions that violate fundamental human rights. That’s the depressing conclusion of a new study by Human Rights Watch, “Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life without Parole Sentences in the United States.”

Three months from now, in March, the US Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the life-without-parole sentence for youth offenders.

The 47-page report draws on six years of research, and interviews and correspondence with correctional officials and hundreds of youth offenders serving life without parole. Human Rights Watch found that nearly every youth offender serving life without parole reported physical violence or sexual abuse by other inmates or corrections officers. Nationwide statistics indicate that young prisoners serving any type of sentence in adult prison, as well as those with a slight build and low body weight, are most vulnerable to attack.

“Children who commit serious crimes and who inflict harm on others should be held accountable,” said Alison Parker, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “But neither youth offenders, nor any other prisoner, should endure any form of physical abuse.” Most of the life-without-parole inmates have been convicted of homicide offenses.

“The penalty [of life without parole] forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal…. For juvenile offenders, who are most in need of and receptive to rehabilitation, the absence of rehabilitative opportunities or treatment makes the disproportionality of the sentence all the more evident,” the report says.

This new research sheds light on the severity of prison conditions for those serving this sentence, Human Rights Watch said.

“ scared to death,” said a youth offender serving life without parole in California. “I was all of 5’6”, 130 pounds and they sent me to PBSP (Pelican Bay State Prison in California). I tried to kill myself because I couldn’t stand what the voices in my head was saying…. ‘You’re gonna get raped.’ ‘You won't ever see your family again.’”

Youth offenders are serving life without parole sentences in 38 states and in federal prisons. They often enter adult prison while still children, although some have reached young adulthood by the time their trials end and they begin serving their sentences. Prison policies that channel resources to inmates who are expected to be released often result in denying youth serving life without parole opportunities for education, development, and rehabilitation, Human Rights Watch found.

Youth offenders commonly reported having thoughts of suicide, feelings of intense loneliness, or depression. Isolation was frequently compounded by solitary confinement. In the past five years, at least three youth offenders serving life without parole sentences in the United States have committed suicide.

The federal government and the states should abolish the sentence of life without parole for crimes committed by children, Human Rights Watch said. Government officials responsible for youth offenders should reform confinement conditions to accommodate their particular vulnerabilities, needs, and capacities to mature, reflect upon the harm they have caused, and change.

“Because children are different, shutting the door to growth, development, and rehabilitation turns a sentence of life without parole into a punishment of excessive cruelty,” said Parker. “Youth offenders should be given a path to rehabilitation while in prison – not forced to forfeit their future.”

Yet, lifers with the opportunity of parole (LWOP’s) experience a lack of educational opportunities. “LWOPs cannot participate in many rehabilitative, educational, vocational training or other assignments available to other inmates with parole dates…. The supposed rationality is that LWOPs are beyond salvagability and would just be taking a spot away from someone who will actually return to society someday,” the report says, quoting a youth offender serving life without parole in California.

Another inmate, this one in Arkansas, told Human Rights Watch (HRW), “I would be ever grateful… for the chance to spend my life now for some good reason. I would go to the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan…or jump on the first manned mission to Mars…. if the state were to offer me some opportunity to end my life doing some good, rather than a slow-wasting plague to the world, it would be a great mercy to me.”

The HRW report said, “Our research has found that youth offenders are among the inmates most susceptible to physical and sexual assault during their incarceration. Many are placed in isolated segregation to protect them or to punish them, some spending years without any but the most fleeting human contact.

Because of their sentence, youth offenders serving life without parole face the additional burden of being classified in ways that deprive them of meaningful opportunities while in prison. Many are denied access to educational and vocational programs available to other inmates. Finally, facing violence, stultifying conditions, and the prospect of lifelong separation from family and friends, many youth offenders experience depression and intense loneliness. Failed by prison mental health services, many contemplate and attempt suicide; some succeed.”

The report found that none of the 560 youthful offenders contacted by Human Rights Watch had managed to avoid violence in prison. When prison officials tolerate such violence, it constitutes a serious human rights abuse.

Youth offenders often spend significant amounts of their time in US prisons isolated from the general prison population. Such segregation can be an attempt to protect vulnerable youth offenders from the general population, to punish infractions of prison rules, or to manage particular categories of inmates, such as alleged gang members.

Youth offenders frequently described their experience in segregation as a profoundly difficult ordeal. Life in long-term isolation usually involves segregating inmates for 23 or more hours a day in their cells. Offenders contacted by Human Rights Watch described the devastating loneliness of spending their days alone, without any human contact, except for when a
guard passes them a food tray through a slot in the door, or when guards touch their wrists.

HRW makes a series of recommendations to federal, state and local judges and prison officials. All are preceded by HRW’s longstanding call to state and federal governments to “abolish the life without parole sentence for all youth offenders and abolish the automatic trial of youth in adult criminal courts and their mandatory incarceration in adult prisons.”

Obama Immigration Agency Exaggerating Deportations

2012-01-07T11:52:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Analysts at Syracuse University have concluded that the Obama Administration’s figures for the number of people deported from the US are being grossly overestimated.

Analysis of government immigration data provided to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in late December -- almost two years after TRAC had requested it -- show that “many fewer individuals were apprehended, detained and deported by the agency than were claimed in its official statements” — congressional testimony, press releases, and the agency's latest 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, TRAC said.

In its initial FOIA request in May 2010, TRAC asked for specific information about all individuals who had been arrested, detained, charged, returned or removed from the country for the period beginning October 1, 2004 to date. According to TRAC, “in its initial and incomplete response, however, ICE so far has only provided TRAC with information through FY 2005. The agency said it would provide detailed information about the more recent years later.”

When compared with various public statements by the agency, however, TRAC's analysis of this limited case-by-case information provided found vast discrepancies. Among them: ICE statements claimed almost five times more individual apprehensions than revealed in the data, as well as 24 times more individuals deported and 34 times more detentions.

Those records were provided to TRAC by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

When the PBS series, “Frontline,” did an hour-long piece on the immigration situation in the US today, a White House immigration spokesperson confirmed that the Obama Administration is deporting 400,000 people every year and racking up the largest number of deportations of any president in American history

TRAC says, “Details about the vast differences between the agency activities documented by the data and its public statements are laid out in a FOIA appeal filed by TRAC on January 4. The surprising size of the discrepancies, the TRAC appeal said, indicated that either "ICE has been making highly exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the level of its enforcement activities," or it is "withholding on a massive scale."

TRAC's appeal emphasized that this was not an inconsequential bookkeeping problem, noting "that the alleged failure of the federal government to enforce the immigration laws has been a hotly debated topic during both the Bush and Obama administrations."

"Thus, the agency's apparent inability to substantiate the level of its claimed enforcement activities is a very significant matter," the appeal continued. "Indeed it is central to the current public debate on federal enforcement policy in the ongoing presidential election campaign."

Recent press accounts credit the Obama Administration, and President Obama specifically, for ordering the deportation of more undocumented persons than any other president in US history. However, the large numbers of deportees reported by government immigration authorities have themselves become problematic.

Various organizations that specialize in immigration matters have concluded that the total number of people deported has included a preponderance of those whose “crimes” have been minor – broken tail lights at traffic stops, expired driver’s licenses, other minor infractions of the law.

Many of these referrals for deportation have been made by a program that was supposed to isolate serious criminals – the Secure Communities program –in which local law enforcement authorities routinely enter fingerprints and other data of people they arrest locally into an immigration database.

Other parts of the database are provided through a program known as 287(g), which gives local law enforcement personnel the authority to act as proxies for Federal immigration officials in arresting and detaining people they believe are in the US illegally.

Both programs have come under heavy fire from immigration and human rights groups on issues including ethnic profiling, and the inexperience of local law enforcement officers with immigration law, which is one of the most complex branches of law.

TRAC seeks the ICE documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Given the long delay in responding to the FOIA request, TRAC requested a formal agency investigation of the matter or that it be referred to the Office of Inspector General.

TRAC said, “As the unlawful failure of ICE to provide the requested data continued well beyond the legal deadlines, TRAC engaged in numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter with agency officials and in late November of 2010 asked the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) for assistance in persuading the agency to act on our request.”

It added, “OGIS, located in the National Archives and Records Administration, was created by Congress in 2007 to serve as a FOIA ‘ombudsman’ resolving conflicts between requesters and agencies. But TRAC says this approach “was not very successful,” and in mid-October 2011 James V.M.L. Holzer, the Director of Homeland Security's Public Liaison and Director of Disclosure and FOIA Operations, intervened in the case.

The organization added, “The failure of ICE to abide by the mandate of the FOIA in a timely way about its immigration enforcement actions during the five-year period covered by our May 2010 request starkly contrasts with the repeated transparency statements of President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and many other administration officials since they came to office almost three years ago.”

TRAC also said ICE’s exaggeration “appears to be a part of a larger pattern.” It said that, in a three-page letter dated September of 2010, for example, ICE informed TRAC that key statistical data it had previously provided us were now "unavailable" and that the agency without explanation, was unilaterally imposing a $450,000 FOIA processing fee.

ICE also claimed that Syracuse University was not an educational institution. Earlier in the same year a sister agency in the Department of Homeland Security — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — demanded an $111,930 processing fee.

“While time consuming, these and other Administration feints, have not stopped TRAC from its two decades long campaign to obtain revealing information from ICE, USCIS, the IRS, the Justice Department and other agencies, TRAC declared.

Saudis to Reinforce Crackdown on Peaceful Protesters, AI

2012-01-03T11:14:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

The Arab Spring has been greeted in Saudi Arabia by “a new wave of repression” that saw authorities arresting and imprisoning peaceful protesters demanding political reforms. Now, the Saudi crackdown may be reinforced by a draft anti-terror law that would effectively criminalize dissent as a “terrorist crime.”

In a new 61-page report, “Saudi Arabia: Repression in the Name of Security,” Amnesty International (AI) said authorities have “used security concerns to justify the arrest of hundreds of people who have been imprisoned after unfair trials.” The draft anti-terror law would further strip away rights from those accused of such offenses, Amnesty said.

“Peaceful protesters and supporters of political reform in the country have been targeted for arrest in an attempt to stamp out the kinds of call for reform that have echoed across the region,” said Philip Luther of AI.

“While the arguments used to justify this wide-ranging crackdown may be different, the abusive practices being employed by the Saudi Arabian government are worryingly similar to those which they have long used against people accused of terrorist offenses,” he said.

AI said that the government “continues to detain thousands of people, many of them without charge or trial, on terrorism-related grounds. Torture and other ill-treatment in detention remain rife.”

In April 2011, an Interior Ministry spokesperson said that around 5,000 people connected to the “deviant group,” meaning al-Qa’ida, had been
questioned and referred for trials, Amnesty said.

Meanwhile, Saudi troops continue to serve in Bahrain on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), helping the rulers of the tiny oil-rich monarchy to put an end to many months of peaceful demonstrations seeking reform.

In a statement following AI’s release of the draft law, the Saudi government said it “absolutely has a responsibility to protect the public from violent attacks, but that has to be done within the boundaries of international law.” It said the new draft law is designed “to assist Saudi Security forces in tackling terrorist activity.”

But AI charges it would “allow the authorities to prosecute peaceful dissent as a terrorist crime.”

The organization says it has obtained copies of the Draft Penal Law for Terrorism Crimes and Financing of Terrorism. It says, “If passed it would pave the way for even the smallest acts of peaceful dissent to be branded terrorism and risk massive human rights violations.”

A Saudi Arabian government security committee reviewed the draft law in June but it is not known when or if it might be passed.

AI says that since February, when sporadic demonstrations began – in defiance of a permanent national ban on protests -- the government carried out a crackdown that included the arrest of hundreds of mostly Shi’a Muslims in the restive eastern province.

Since March over 300 people who took part in peaceful protests in al-Qatif, al-Ahsa and Awwamiya have been detained.

Khaled al-Johani, 40, the only man to demonstrate on the March 11 “Day of Rage” in Riyadh, was swiftly arrested. He told journalists he was frustrated by media censorship in Saudi Arabia. Charged with supporting a protest and communicating with foreign media, he is believed to have been held in solitary confinement for two months, Amnesty said.

“Nine months later, he remains in detention and has not been tried. A number of people who have spoken up in support of protests or reform have been arrested. Sheikh Tawfiq Jaber Ibrahim al-‘Amr, a Shi'a cleric, was arrested for the second time this year in August for calling for reform at a mosque. He has been charged with “inciting public opinion,” AI said.

On November 22, 16 men, including nine prominent reformists, were sentenced to five to 30 years in prison on charges they formed a secret
organization, attempted to seize power, financed terrorism as well as incitement against the King and money laundering.

Amnesty says their trial, which began in May, was grossly unfair. “The defendants were blindfolded and handcuffed and their lawyer was not allowed to enter the court for the first three sessions,” AI said.

“Unless it were radically altered, the proposed draft anti-terror law would make the current situation even worse, as it would entrench and make
legal the very worst practices we have documented,” according to AI’s Luther.

The draft law allows for suspects to be held in incommunicado detention for up to 120 days, or for longer periods – potentially indefinitely – if authorized by a specialized court.

Under the draft law, terrorist crimes would include such actions as
“endangering…national unity”, “halting the basic law or some of its articles”, or “harming the reputation of the state or its position”.

Violations of the law would carry harsh punishments. The death penalty would be applied to cases of taking up arms against the state or for any “terrorist crimes” that result in death.

Amnesty charges that a number of other key provisions in the draft law run counter to Saudi Arabia’s international legal obligations, including those under the UN Convention against Torture.

Amnesty is calling on King Abdullah to “reconsider this law and ensure that his people’s legitimate right to freedom of expression is not curtailed in the name of fighting terrorism.”

Prof. Chip Pitts of Stanford and Oxford, former Chair of Amnesty International USA, commented on the proposed new law.

“Having just renewed the USA Patriot Act, the United States has sadly continued to set the stage for and model such counterproductive, harsh, and illegal approaches, and undermined its ability to credibly and effectively question them,” he said, adding:

“The myopic and reactionary approach taken in the new Saudi draft law, which would violate the country’s obligations under international human rights law, shows that the Kingdom is battening down the hatches and preparing for a long period of continued feudal rule that contradicts the very premises of expanding human rights that have swept the world in recent centuries.”

“Neglecting the lessons of the Arab Spring – that repression ultimately breeds instability and violence – the Saudi regime apparently prefers to look backwards to an error of medieval justice and absolute monarchical power which brooks no dissent. Such backwardness condemns the Saudi regime to greater isolation over time, and the Saudi people and businesses to constricted options for economic and social development, unless wiser heads prevail and move toward more progressive instead of regressive laws,” he said.

Prof. Lawrence Davidson, who teaches history at West Chester University, sees the proposed new law in its longer-term context.

He said, “Laws like this essentially blur the lines between the criminal and the authorities. It makes it much harder to tell who is who. Presently, there are two aspects to Saudi power: Force of questionable legitimacy and the ability to buy the loyalty of a portion of their population. In a couple of generations the latter may well go away and then former will probably prove insufficient. This law will not lessen the probability that last of the Saudi royal line dying in exile.”

Toothless and Tone Deaf

2011-12-31T11:56:00.000-05:00

It took exactly one day for the Syrian protesters to figure out what the Arab League sent them to "observe" the state of civil strife in that poor unfortunate country.
At the League, the dispatch of monitors to Syria was seen as a determined and courageous initiative. And it's true the League has been short on initiatives since its founding. Mostly it has issued communiqués as full of smoke, hyperbole and hypocrisy as is each delegate and the countries they lead.
For three decades, the Arab League has used the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as its all-purpose fig-leaf. It has substituted rhetoric for serious recommendations, perhaps with the exception of a "peace plan" put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and again in 2007. Skeptical observers believe that the League would rather have a live issue than a resolved dispute.
(This is not to deny that successive Israeli governments have not behaved in similar ways, but that's a subject for another day.)
So back to Day One in Syria. That's when the protestors learned that the head of the Arab League mission has been the intelligence chief in Darfur, working for Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, who has been charged with 10 charges of war crimes. It would be a huge stretch to believe that the League's man, General Mustafa Dabi, had no inkling that Darfurians were experiencing any inconveniences.
The first meeting of the General and the protesters happened in the city of Homs, which has been reported in the West as the scene of a massive bloodbath, with security services firing randomly into a crowd of citizens.On the very day that General al-Dabi visited Homs, rebel forces reported that 19 people were there were killed by Assad's security men.
As Syrian tanks pulled out of Homs, "activists charged that the government's action was a ruse to mislead observers from the Arab League." But General Mustafa Dabi said, "The situation seemed reassuring so far." He added, "Some places looked a bit of a mess but there was nothing frightening." He said he plans to return to Homs as well as to other cities that have been under Syrian fire.
Let us pray that the General does return and does not represent the views of the other 150 monitors now in the country. Maybe it would be fair to ascribe his somewhat confused rhetoric to first-day-settling-in issues.
But, given the lackluster performance of the Arab League over many years, what is it reasonable to expect from this group of Dinosaurs?
Look at these members of the League, minus recently expelled Syria and plus Libya, restored to membership after Gadaffi fell.
The League consists of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq ,Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine,Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
Can we point to one democracy, however defined, among these 20 countries? Can we point to those in which a Sunni Muslim King or President rules over a majority Shia population? Can we name one that allows its citizens complete freedom of religion? Can we name one not based on crony-capitalism? How many can we find who won't arrest you with a warrant, hold you without charges or a lawyer, torture or perhaps kill you in detention, and – if you're lucky – get a sham show-trial that might last, say, 10 minutes.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt have always occupied positions of great influence within the League. So it offers no comfort whatever to learn that the Saudis are planning to introduce really draconian legislation which would criminalize any unlicensed public assembly, while Egypt's "interim" military rulers are trying to figure out how they can appear to be giving up their power to civilians while in fact making it harder for anyone except a general do actually get anything done.
After a day's experience with the League monitors, the Syrian protesters are calling for their dismissal and referral of the whole matter to the United Nations.
Nice idea, but lest we forget, Russia and China appear steadfast in trying to preserve their countries' lucrative commercial ties. Don't expect any boat-rocking from these two.

2011-12-31T11:53:00.000-05:00

Egypt Security Raids US, German and Egyptian NGOs

2011-12-29T11:08:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Seeming to borrow a page from the Hosni Mubarak playbook, Egyptian security forces yesterday raided the offices of two Egyptian, two American and one German non-governmental organization and held their staffs inside these offices while police and prosecutors search their papers and computers.

The reason for the raids is still unclear, but it is known that these are among the not-for-profit groups who have registered strong objections to the so-called NGO law drafted by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) IN November 2011.

According to the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), officers – in uniform and civilian clothes – raided the Arab Center for Independence of Justice and Legal Professions (ACIJP) and The Budgetary and Human Rights Observatory, both Egyptian NGOs; The National Democratic Institute (NDI), an American NGO with offices in Cairo and Assuit); the International Republican Institute (IRI), an American organization with an office in Cairo; Freedom House, an American organization with an office in Egypt, and Konrad Adenauer, a German NGO.

The staff members of these organizations were reportedly held in their offices while. Police searched their papers, laptops and computers.

Staff members of the six organizations were warned from using their cell phones, laptops and computers; and were isolated from contact with the outside world. Additionally, with regards to the ACIJP office at least, authorities restricted access to the entire building, preventing people from entering or exiting the building.

ANHRI said that “storming these offices is related to the campaign led by the Supreme Council for Armed Forces (SCAF) and the Egyptian government starting from June 2011 against civil society organizations and more specifically human rights groups in Egypt.”

The NDI, IRI, and Freedom House have been previously investigated by the ministry of justice on charges of receiving foreign funding, while the Arab Center for the Independence of Justice and Legal Professions has not been yet investigated. An Investigation of the Budgetary and Human Rights Observatory was due to start next Sunday, January 1, 2012.

ANHRI said the storming of NGO offices is “an unprecedented move in the recent history of Egyptian NGOs,” adding that in February 2011, during the 18 days Egyptian revolution, “Military Police stormed the office of Hisham Mubarak Law Center, an Egyptian NGO based in Cairo, and arrested several of its members as well as staff members of other international organizations who were present at the scene.”

The Egyptian newspaper, Al Ahram, reported, “In Mubarak's time the government never dared to do such a thing," said prominent human rights activists Negad El-Bourai on his Twitter account.”

"We are still not sure of anything," said Emad Mubarak from the Freedom of Expression Center, "however their excuse could be that they are auditing the files after accusations that many NGOs are receiving foreign funds."

In August, a group of Egyptian NGOs sent an urgent appeal to the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, the Rights to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders. It is unclear what action the UN body took.

Thirty-nine Egyptian NGOs participated in the appeal, submitting a complaint condemning the campaign against civil society associations and the incitement to hatred, as well as government attempts to further restrict the activities of these organizations and the investigations launched by the Supreme State Security Prosecution.

In November, 2011, these 39 human rights and development organizations drafted a new law to regulate NGOs and sent a copy to then Prime Minister Essam Sharaf.

The proposed law provided for the autonomy of Egyptian civil society organizations from the state and its administrative apparatus. At the same time, it guaranteed the transparent operation of these organizations in terms of their activities and sources of funding. Under the proposed law, civil society groups and NGOs could be established by notification at a primary court, and the Ministry of Justice would be the competent administrative body. The law also provided for the freedom to join and form international and local networks and alliances. No action has been taken on this draft law.

ANHRI said that, “Since their formation human rights organizations have been at the forefront of proposing laws to liberate civic action. This law is one of many proposed since 1985. In 2009, during the Mubarak era, an alternative law was proposed by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights; however, it was disregarded by the regime.”

The group added,” In light of the continuation of the Mubarak regimes policy towards civil society organizations, including interference in civil society operations by the administrative and security sectors, the undersigned organizations now proffer the same law in a new initiative joined by several more groups. In addition, a media campaign has been launched to smear civil society, particularly human rights groups, in order to damage the credibility of their reports and their criticisms of the human rights record of the SCAF and its government.

ANHRI went further. It said this campaign has recently “taken more deplorable measures even than what was attempted by Mubarak himself. The undersigned organizations propose this law as a democratic alternative to the current law, passed in 2002, which gives arbitrary powers to the Ministry of Social Solidarity and Justice and permits daily intervention by the security apparatus in the operation of civil society associations and NGOs.

The group said its alternative law was “drafted with due consideration for international standards, aiming to rectify the current law’s incompatibility with such standards, as this incompatibility was a constant source of criticism of the Egyptian government, especially during the UN Universal Periodic Review of the human rights record in Egypt conducted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2010.”

It noted that one of the recommendations to the Egyptian government was to “pass legislation that allows NGOs to accept foreign funding without prior government approval, legislation that allows for increased freedom of association and assembly, and legislation allowing labor unions to operate without joining the Egyptian Trade Union Federation”.

The 39 signatories to the letter of objection said that, after the January 25 Revolution, they “hoped that civil society would be freed from the bureaucratic grasp of the state and its security apparatus and that it would be given the opportunity to perform its patriotic role by entrenching democratic norms, respect for human rights, and social justice in post-revolution Egypt.”

However, they added, “this hope soon faded in light of the unchanged mindset of the regime and its failure in administering the transitional phase. In fact, the investigating authorities currently looking into the activities of human rights groups are relying on reports prepared by the dissolved State Security Investigations of the Mubarak era – the very apparatus whose practices were one of the main reasons Egyptians revolted to bring down the regime.”

The signatories concluded, “It is a bitter irony that the interim government and the SCAF are using the same justifications espoused by the extreme right-wing Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu to force through legal amendments to limit the freedom of human rights organizations in Israel on the pretext of protecting Israeli national security. This is the justification cited by the Egyptian regime in its current assault on human rights groups—“protecting Egyptian national security”—to use legal, administrative, and security means to harass human rights groups with the goal of covering up crimes committed by the regime.”

“While Israel hopes to silence those defending the rights of the Arab minority and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the Egyptian regime seeks to silence those who decry its practices, such as the use of excessive force against unarmed demonstrators, the referral of civilians to military trials, torture by the military police, the Maspero massacre of Copts, and other crimes,” they said.

NDI and IRI were created in 1983 as two of the four core institutes of the US National Endowment for Democracy, which was established by Congress in that year to act as a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad. The two organizations correspond to the political parties bearing their respective names.

Freedom House was established in 1941 with the quiet encouragement of then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its initial mission was to encourage popular support for American involvement in World War II at a time when isolationist sentiments were running high in the United States. Today it is best known for the publication “Freedom in the World”, the Freedom House annual survey of global policies and civil liberties, which it began in 1973.

The 39 signatories to today ANHRI statement included such groups as the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights the Association for Human Rights Legal Aid, the Human Rights Association for the Assistance of the Prisoners, the Center for Trade Union and Workers’ Services, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, the Group for Human Rights Legal Aid, the Land Center for Human Rights, the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights, and the Hisham Mubarak Law Center.

What does all this mean in terms of the January revolution? The Public Record asked an American aid consultant who has lived in Cairo for 25 years. He told us it’s not absolutely safe to use his name, but this is what he told us:

“The smear campaign conducted by the SCAF against civil society groups is appalling. No one has a clue about what they’re thinking, but they’ve apparently swallowed Mubarak’s whole story about non-profit groups being responsible for Egypt’s unrest. The fact is that these organizations are the last line of defense against authoritarian, capricious and senseless limitation of these groups’ abilities. With SCAF in charge, we really didn’t need a revolution!”

Rendition – Still With Us!

2011-12-27T18:38:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

Two of Europe’s most respected human rights organizations are accusing a little-known European Union agency of paying “lip service to transparency” (while) “covering up crucial evidence on the CIA rendition program.”

Crofton Black, an investigator for the charity, Reprieve, said the agency, called “EUROCONTROL, has the necessary information and it is able to disclose it.” He asked, “Will it step up and do the right thing? The clock is ticking.”

The requests for information have come from Reprieve and its partners, Access Info Europe. They have written to the Director General of EUROCONTROL, asking him to reconsider his denial of access to flight planning information vital to renditions accountability.

So far, EUROCONTROL is refusing to release crucial evidence relating to the CIA’s illegal renditions program, despite requests to do so by Reprieve and Access Info Europe.

Reprieve uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay. It investigates, litigates and educates, and provides legal support to prisoners unable to pay for it. It promotes the rule of law around the world, and works to secure each person’s right to a fair trial.

In the past, the organizations say, EUROCONTROL “has made a significant positive contribution to the struggle for renditions accountability, disclosing portions of its records to the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and to the Danish parliament. Thanks to these disclosures, flight logs for dozens of planes, contracted by the CIA to perform sometimes illegal missions, have become available.”

The groups added, “This good track record is at risk, however, as EUROCONTROL has recently and unaccountably denied access to records for another 54 planes. These planes were unidentified at the time earlier requests were made, and represent new insights into the renditions program, particularly in its later stages.”

EUROCONTROL, the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation, is an intergovernmental organization made up of 39 Member States and the European Community. EUROCONTROL is committed to building a Single European Sky that will deliver the ATM performance required for the 21st century and beyond.

Founded in 1960, it is a civil-military organization that has developed into a vital European repository of air traffic management (ATM) excellence, both leading and supporting ATM improvements across Europe.

EUROCONTROL supports its Member States to achieve safe, efficient and environmentally-friendly air traffic operations across the whole of the European region.

EUROCONTROL is made up of 39 European member states, including the UK, all of whom are bound by freedom of information laws – and who fund its half a billion euro budget. However, the organization appears to consider itself above the laws which apply to its members when it comes to disclosure of information – even when it relates to serious criminal acts such as the renditions program.

Access Info Europe’s campaign coordinator, Lydia Medland, said: “Consistent with European and International human rights law, EUROCONTROL should now make a review of the information that they hold, and consider the public interest in this case.”

Access Info Europe is a Spanish-based human rights organisation dedicated to promoting and protecting the right of access to information in Europe and globally as a tool for defending civil liberties and human rights, for facilitating public participation in decision-making and for holding governments accountable.

Reprieve notes that, in 2005, investigators, law enforcement officials and journalists became aware of the widescale use of private US-registered aircraft, illegally to transport (‘render’) individuals captured by the US and other governments in the context of the ‘war on terror’.

Prisoners transported by this method were routinely also held incommunicado and tortured, in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture, the Geneva Conventions and the domestic laws of all European countries.

A list of such aircraft was collected and published in two Council of Europe reports, in 2006 and 2007. Owing to the ongoing evolution of the CIA’s rendition and detention program, however, the Council’s data remained incomplete.

For the last twelve months, Reprieve and Access Info Europe say they have been building a more comprehensive overview of aircraft involved in the renditions program, and their flight routes. The list includes aircraft active before the Council of Europe reports but unknown to the Council of Europe investigators, and aircraft active after the Council of Europe reports. It currently includes 54 aircraft, all of which have substantive documentary connections to entities involved in CIA renditions operations. An interim report on this project will shortly be released.

In a letter to EUROCONTROL’s Director General David McMillan, the organizations, responding to EUROCONTROL’S denial of the records being sought, Reprieve and Access Info wrote, “We wish to explain why we consider your denial to be a very serious mistake and to urge you to reconsider most carefully in the light of your legal, social and ethical responsibilities.”

The organizations then laid out a timeline of exchanges on this issue. The said that, in 2005, investigators, law enforcement officials and journalists became aware of the wide-scale use of private US-registered aircraft, illegally to transport (‘render’) individuals captured by the US and other governments in the context of the ‘war on terror’.

Prisoners transported by this method were routinely also held Incommunicado and tortured, in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture, the

Geneva Conventions and the domestic laws of all European countries.

The organizations noted that a list of such aircraft was collected and published in two Council of Europe reports, in 2006 and 2007. Owing to the ongoing evolution of the CIA’s rendition and detention program, however, the Council’s data remained incomplete.

They reminded EUROCONTROL that, for the last twelve months, Reprieve and Access Info Europe have been building a more comprehensive overview of aircraft involved in the renditions program, and their flight routes. The list includes aircraft active before the Council of Europe reports but unknown to the Council of Europe investigators, and aircraft active after the Council of Europe reports. It currently includes 54 aircraft, all of which have substantive documentary connections to entities involved in CIA renditions operations.

The groups charge, “It is demonstrable that EUROCONTROL holds relevant data on these aircraft, is able to disclose it, and has disclosed such data in the past for the same purpose. “

It reminded McMillan that EUROCONTROL had said, ““in the context of the EU's single European sky, the EUROCONTROL Agency is committed to promoting the objective of transparency. It is currently working on adapting its internal data rules on public disclosure.”

On 20 October 2011, therefore, EUROCONTROL was asked for information or documents relating to the movements of 54 aircraft between 2001 and 2011.

On 2 November 2011, EUROCONTROL denied an October request but failed to provide any reason, stating simply that it was not covered by the regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. But “EUROCONTROL is mistaken” in asserting that this data must remain confidential, for the following reasons:

Similar data has already been disclosed by EUROCONTROL and is freely available in the public domain. Public documents attest to the response of EUROCONTROL to a similar request in 2008, asking for records from the data warehouse and Central Route Charges Office relating to all flights billed to specific route planning and operating companies from 2001 to 2008.1 This response includes over 150 pages of precisely the same type of information that we request.

Indeed, the information request in this previous instance was far broader than our request, since it has never been suggested, nor could it be maintained, that all flights billed to these companies were in any way

connected with the renditions program.

In addition, many EUROCONTROL member states have already disclosed similar ing that this kind of data can and should be released.

In public, EUROCONTROL makes commendable claims of transparency. In its message to Access Info Europe on 12 October, the company stated a commitment to matching transparency standards set by the European regulation 1049/2001, despite not being legally bound. However, by refusing to disclose the information, or to identify a legitimate reason for non-disclosure, EUROCONTROL has failed to meet even the minimal transparency standards to which it aspires.

The alarming disparity between Euro control’s professed commitment and its actions highlights a dangerous gap in European transparency standards. If small bodies holding public information cannot meet national standards, both national and EU transparency efforts can be swiftly undermined. Access Info Europe calls on all bodies that hold public information to uphold at least the same transparency standards as their member states.

There is an overriding public interest obligation on EUROCONTROL to disclose the records we have requested. EUROCONTROL is the primary - and in some cases the only - repository of information crucial to the investigation of serious crimes and breaches of rights recognized by the European Convention and other conventions cited above.

As such, EUROCONTROL has a duty to comply with any such investigation, and any failure to disclose relevant information would render it complicit in the continuing cover-up of these crimes.

The signatories to the letter are awaiting Euro control’s response.

In Bahrain’s Hour of Peril, Where Does the U.S. Stand?

2011-12-27T18:34:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

News Analysis

The United Nations’ top human rights official is calling on tiny, oil-rich Bahrain to release prisoners detained for joining peaceful demonstrations earlier this year, and to restore the jobs of thousands of people who were dismissed for joining the protest.

Navi Pillay said in a statement that this action should be taken as a confidence-building measure.

Bahrain’s Human Rights activists applauded her statement. Faisal Fulad, Secretary General of Bahrain Human Rights Watch Society, said in response, “We have expressed all along that the government needs to show its commitment in order to gain the trust and respect of the people.”

He added: “The reforms agreed to in the National Dialogue, and the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) should be implemented immediately and those held for championing democracy must be released.”

Bahrain has been torn apart by peaceful protests met by armed responses following initial demonstrations for democratic rights made by the people during February and March this year. A strong crackdown by the government led to thousands of arrests and trials that took place under military rule during a state of emergency.

It was during this time that the Gulf Cooperation Council dispatched several thousand Saudi Arabian motorized troops to Bahrain to assist the Bahraini government to maintain order and re-establish stability.

Bahrain’s leadership, including the King, has since admitted that excessive force was used during the crackdown and that those responsible will be brought to justice.

To the surprise of virtually everyone, King Hamad appointed an independent commission to investigate the tense situation in the country and make recommendations for bringing the conflict to a peaceful end. Headed by a distinguished Egyptian judge, Cherif Bassiouni, and funded by the government.

According to a new report from Human Rights First, a US-based legal advocacy group, Judge Bassiouni stood in front of the King of Bahrain and largely confirmed what the world’s leading international human rights organizations and media outlets had been saying for months:

Thousands of people were illegally arrested, many were tortured;

detainees were subjected to unfair trials; several people died in custody; .

dozens had been killed in the streets; thousands of workers and students were dismissed for perceived association with the democracy protests; .

there were some attacks on expat workers; there had been a series of attacks on Shi’a places of worship.

King Hamad is a Sunni Muslim, as are all the senior figures in the government and in the Royal Family’s circle of friends and confidantes. The majority of Bahrainis, however, is Shia. They have been complaining against discrimination in employment, housing and finance for many years. Bahrain has a large cadre of senior workers imported from abroad.

King Hamad said he was “dismayed” by the findings of the report concerning the use of torture, and pledged reforms.

“We do not tolerate the mistreatment of detainees and prisoners,” he said.

The King promised to implement a series of recommendations contained in the Commission’s 500-page report. However, since the report's release, the Bahrain regime has not significantly altered its behavior.

Police continue to attack protestors and funeral mourners. Those imprisoned after being convicted on the basis of tortured confessions have not been released. Those who appear to be detained on the basis of peacefully exercising their freedoms of expression or assembly are still

imprisoned.

King Hamad has ordered the establishment of a committee to “follow up and implement” the BICI recommendations. It is expected to report by the end of February 2012 and to make suggestions “including the recommendations to make the necessary amendments to the legislation and the application of the recommendations.” It includes the Minister for Justice.

But human rights activists told HRF some of those on the commission are “part of the problem,” and so “can't be part of the solution.”

King Hamad has taken a number of steps, largely focusing on personnel. He removed the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), Sheikh Khalifa bin Abdullah Al Khalifa. The NSA was heavily criticized in the BICI report for its use of excessive force. However, it would appear that Sheikh Al Khalifa has been promoted, and made the Secretary-General of the Supreme Defence Council and a National Security Adviser to the King with ministerial rank.

He has also made two top appointments to the police. John Timoney, formerly chief of police in Miami, Florida, will take on a similar post in Bahrain. He will be assisted by another new hire, the former chief of the UK’s Metropolitan Police, John Yates, who quit amid phone-hacking scandal will overhaul Middle East kingdom's force.

On December 7, the Bahrain government announced that the King “forgave” a group of athletes who had criticized him and would drop charges against them, although did not say it would free other athletes already sentenced.

Shiite Muslim doctors look back with horror at months of torture and demand a neutral hearing now that they are out on bail pending retrial for their role in pro-democracy protests.

“I can’t talk,” sobbed consultant paediatrician Nader Dawani, recounting how he was forced to stand up for seven days, while being beaten repeatedly, mainly by a female officer.

“She was the harshest. She used to hit me with a hose and wooden canes, many of which broke on my back,” said the frail 54-year-old man.

“They attempted to insert a bottle in my anus,” he recounted.

Dawani is one of a group of medics arrested after security forces in the kingdom ruled by the Sunni Al-Khalifa dynasty crushed a Shiite-led uprising inspired by Arab Spring protests that toppled the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt.

They face a plethora of charges, the most serious of which is occupying the Salmaniya Medical Centre and possessing weapons, while denying access to the hospital to Sunnis as Shiite demonstrators camped in the complex’s car park.

The doctors also stand accused of spreading false news — particularly concerning the condition of wounded protesters — illegal acquisition of medicines and medical facilities, and participating in demonstrations.

Thirteen were convicted by a military court on September 29 and sentenced to between five and 10 years in jail. But before the verdict was handed down, they had already been released and now face retrial before a civil appeals court.

Claims that torture was used against scores of Shiite detainees, including the medics, were upheld in November by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry.

Many Shiite medics who were not arrested, like consultant neurosurgeon Taha al-Derazi, lost their jobs just for being photographed at a demonstration.

The medics insist they are innocent. The commission’s report stated the charges that they inflated the number of protesters injured were unfounded, noting that hospital records showed hundreds were admitted during mid-February.

“All my statements to media were related to the wounded,” said consultant orthopaedic surgeon Ali Alekri, insisting he did not meddle in politics and only led demonstrations against the then health minister who was later sacked.

“Our slogans were clear: sack the minister and his administration for failing to protect medics, halting ambulance movement when needed and giving false information on numbers of casualties,” he said.

“We never called for the fall of the regime,” he added.

Alekri said the medics “need a neutral body,” an “international judicial body” to judge them. “We don’t trust the Bahraini judicial system.”

It was speaking out that got them in trouble, the medics said.

“We are witnesses to the crimes of the regime,” said Dawani, who, like most of his sentenced colleagues, and other foreign and Sunni medics, appear in abundant video footage treating casualties at the SMC accident and emergency department.

Rula al-Saffar, 49, the head of the Bahraini Nursing Society, who faces 15 years in jail, said she treated more than 200 female fellow prisoners who were subjected to torture and did not escape abuse herself.

During five months in custody, Saffar said, “At night they would take me blindfolded. I can smell alcohol fuming with their breaths. One interrogator would say: It is the weekend and we are a group. If you don’t confess, we will sleep with you one at a time.”

Which brings us to the question: What, if anything, has the US been doing about the situation in Bahrain.

The short answer is that the US Government has been largely silent. This has given rise to widespread perceptions among the Bahraini Shia population that America is on the side of the King.

Maryam al-Khawaja of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, minces no words. She says, “The United States has collaborated with the deadly crackdown on the popular revolution against Bahrain's despotic monarchy. "People in Bahrain think that the US is in one way or another directly complicit in what's happening in Bahrain," she said in a Press TV interview.

The US Government’s rhetorical constipation reflects its attitude toward the stand-off between the Royal Family and pro-democracy activists. Secretary of State Clinton has delivered her almost-stock wish for moderation on both sides and a peaceful end to hostilities through dialogue.

The US sees a number of important relationships possibly being upended by full-throated support for either side. Saudi Arabia is one of Washington’s prime concerns. Bahrain is situation in the Persian Gulf just across a 1.4 mile causeway, over which the Saudi troops rolled in to help Bahrain’s rulers.

One of Saudi’s Eastern provinces is just a few miles from one of Bahrain’s western provinces. Both are largely Shia. And both are oil-rich. The two Shia communities have a long-standing relationship, and the Saudis worry about Bahrain’s violence spilling over into the desert Kingdom.r uld Saudi Arabia (or any of the other Gulf states) be thrilled to see a democratic form of government replacing the monarchy in Bahrain.

At this juncture, the US is turning itself into a pretzel to keep from angering the Saudis, who were reportedly upset at how quickly the US threw Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus. This concerned the Saudis for a number of reasons; one of them is the question of whether America would treat Saudi Arabia in the same way if pro-democracy forces were to prevail in Bahrain.

Aside from worrying about the Saudis, the US has its own, more immediate concerns: The American Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain. That makes stability the top priority for US policy-makers.

So far, the most tangible help given to Bahrain’s protesters has been the suspension of a scheduled shipment of arms from the US, a position reached after some grassroots and congressional warnings to the White House. The arms shipment reportedly contains weapons used for crowd control.

With Lawyers for Some

2011-12-22T11:27:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

The nation’s legal aid organizations are intended to provide lawyers for the poor. But today these agencies are overburdened, underfunded, and inefficient.

Yet, the non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based Justice Policy Institute Justice (JPI) says, “At a time when more poor people are seeking legal help, legal services programs are bracing for more federal funding cuts.”

The JPI says, “Inadequate public defense systems lead to more incarceration, in the form of unnecessary pretrial detention, increased pressure to plead guilty, wrongful convictions, excessive sentences and increased barriers to successful community re-entry. Incarceration, in turn, can lead to higher costs for individuals, families, communities and taxpayers.”

In criminal cases, the Constitution guarantees a person a lawyer if he or she can't afford to hire one. But in civil cases, low-income individuals must fend for themselves.

Recently, the Institute reports, a U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee proposed cutting legal aid funding by 26 percent for the next funding cycle. States like Mississippi receive 80 percent of their funding from the federal government, says Rebekah Diller, deputy director of the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

"It's a terrible time to cut legal aid programs," Diller said. "We are really concerned... Everybody is still suffering with the recession."

Plus, Diller says, areas like Mississippi are dealing with the aftermath of tornadoes and flooding, which have increased the need for civil legal help for low-income residents.

Last year, the two Legal Services programs in the state, Mississippi Center for Legal Services and North Mississippi Rural Legal Services, lost about $228,000 when federal funding for such programs were cut 4 percent, said Sam Buchanon, executive director of Mississippi Center for Legal Services.

"We are praying the proposed 25 to 26 percent cut in funding doesn't pass," Buchanon said. "That would devastate programs."

If the proposed 26 percent cut goes into effect, national funding would be down to the lowest level since the start of the program in 1974, Diller said.

At the same time, the national poverty population eligible for civil legal aid grown by 17 percent since 2008 to an all-time high of 63 million Americans.

The federal Legal Services Corp. - which distributes grants to local programs -reports that from 2009 to 2010, foreclosure cases were up 20 percent at LSC-funded programs; unemployment compensation cases increased 10.5 percent; landlord-tenant disputes rose by 7.7 percent; bankruptcy, debt relief and consumer finance cases were up by nearly 5 percent.

Mississippi Center for Legal Services serves 43 counties in the central and southern part of the state and has offices in Jackson, Hattiesburg, McComb and Biloxi. North Mississippi Rural Legal Services covers 39 counties in the northern part of the state with offices in Oxford, Clarksdale, Greenville, Tupelo and West Point.

Last year, the legal services programs closed about 10,800 cases.

Mississippi currently receives more than $5 million annually in federal legal service funding.

As more people seek help, Buchanon said the Mississippi Center for Legal Services doesn't have the manpower to service all the requests.The same holds true for the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services, according to executive director Ben Cole. Cole said 60 percent of the people who seek the agency's services are turned away because it doesn't have enough workers.

According to the Institute, “many systems across the country have been in a state of ‘chronic crisis’ for decades. The defender systems that people must rely on are too often completely overwhelmed; many defenders simply have too many cases, too little time and too few resources to provide quality or even adequate legal representation.”

JPI adds that “only seven per cent of all county-based public defender offices have enough investigators to meet national guidelines.”

The following are some of the main findings in the Justice Policy Institute’s new report, System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing Public Defense.

The majority of public defender offices and systems have excessive caseloads. Only 27 percent of county-based public defender offices and 21 percent of reporting state public defender systems have enough attorneys to meet caseload guidelines.4 Statewide systems had only a median of 67 percent of the number of attorneys necessary to meet caseload guidelines. Nearly 60 percent of county-based public defender offices
do not have caseload limits or the authority to refuse cases due to excessive caseloads.

Overwhelming caseloads can prevent even the most dedicated and talented attorneys from providing their clients with a quality defense. A lack of resources limits the ability to prepare and investigate. Only 7 percent of all county-based public defender offices have enough investigators to meet national guidelines and 87 percent of small county-based public defender offices do not have a single full-time investigator.

When defenders do not have access to sufficient resources they may be unable to interview key witnesses, collect or test physical evidence, or generally prepare and provide quality defense for their client, resulting in poorer outcomes for the client.
Public defense systems don’t have enough independence or oversight. Without independence from judicial and political influence, the defense system’s legitimacy can be compromised. A lack of oversight has also
contributed to a system in which a person’s access to justice varies wildly depending on the zip code or county in which he or she was accused of an offense.

Only 27 percent of county-based public defender offices and 21 percent of state public defender systems have enough attorneys to meet caseload guidelines.

A lack of resources limits training opportunities. Ongoing education and training is vital, especially with technological advancements in DNA and forensics, which can make cases more time consuming and complicated. Without this training—or the time to use it—defense attorneys may be less equipped to test the prosecution’s evidence at trial or advise a client regarding a plea offer, possibly leading to a conviction or harsher sentence for their client.

Lack of quality defense may lead to pretrial detention. In places where defender caseloads are very high or the court fails to appoint counsel in a timely manner, poor people may spend a lot of time in jail before ever speaking to a lawyer or appearing in court.

Unnecessary or prolonged pretrial detention due to case delays, late appointments of counsel, lack of or limited pretrial advocacy can also increase costs. Pretrial detention is expensive and can have a negative
impact on people and their families.

Lack of quality defense could lead to excessive prison sentences. A general lack of advocacy at sentencing, coupled with a lack of investigation throughout the process can lead to inappropriate and unnecessarily harsh sentences.

A lack of quality public defense and the costs that accompany them disproportionately affect people of color and those with low income, as public defense is provided to people who cannot afford to hire an attorney.
Furthermore, people from communities with low income are more likely to be arrested than people from more affluent communities. Research also shows that the justice system in general also disproportionately affects people of color. As people of color are also disproportionately affected by poverty, they are also more likely to require court appointed counsel when arrested.

The JPI report contains a series of recommendations, including integrating a holistic and community-based approach to public defense, collecting better data, conducting more empirical evaluations of the impact of public defense systems on people, communities and criminal justice, and. involving public defenders and affected communities in the policy making process.

Bahrain: Dialogue with Teargas?

2011-12-19T14:22:00.000-05:00

Some mainstream media are suggesting that the Bahraini version of The Arab Spring is over. Crushed was the word used by one of the mainstream US newspapers.

But the Sunni King of the tiny oil-rich country, Hamad-Bin-Isa-Al-Khalifa, says the independent report he commissioned is being implemented. The report concluded that peaceful demonstrators were being attacked by soldiers, arbitrarily arrested, taken to prison and tortured. The King has, unexplainably, accepted the report's findings and promised to work with the people on long-overdue reforms. He is seeking patience from his majority Shia subjects.

But these subjects – at least what appears to be a substantial proportion of them – have run out of patience. They have been shot at, killed and wounded, arrested and tortured since March. They have no faith in the
King's reforms. They think he's stalling to buy time. They are telling a very different story.

Their story is about peaceful demonstrations being broken up by security forces with live fire in addition to tear gas, batons and water canon. Their story is about continuing middle-of-the night home invasions by security men, threatening whole families, arresting the men, and taking them away to an uncertain future. Their story is about sick people in jail not getting adequate medical attention and prisoners being routinely tortured. Their story is about thousands of teachers, doctors and nurses being fired from their jobs. Their story is about thousands of students expelled from the university.

These Bahrainis will be satisfied with nothing less than the abdication of the King, the removal of his family from the most senior government posts, a new constitution and an election to create a parliamentary democracy. The King has won no trust from this group. Their mantra here, as it was for Mubarak in Tahrir Square in Egypt, is: The King Must Go!

There are other Bahrainis, however, who appear willing to attempt to participate in a dialogue with the Royals to determine for themselves whether His Majesty is serious about real reforms. But thus far, there has
been virtually no action taken by the Government to begin creating any sort of dialogue.So while the Royal family and its government remain unified and determined, a small divide has opened among two factions of protestors.

How this will play out over time is unclear. But time appears to be on the side of the King, in whose name security forces, backed by the presence of troops from Saudi Arabia, appear prepared to continue their brutal crackdowns on dissidents.
That became clear this weekend.

Saudi-backed regime troops attacked anti-government protesters demanding an end to the rule of the Al Khalifa family in the eastern Bahraini town of Toobli. Clashes between protesters and government forces have also been reported in a number of other villages and towns across the Persian Gulf sheikdom. The troops used tear gas to disperse the protesters. Several protesters have so far been killed and hundreds injured.

Following is a lightly edited report from the spokesperson for the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, Maryam Al-Khawaja. She is believed to be in London. Her father, her sister and her sister's husband and their two-year old son, are currently in prison in B

Death of three civilians:

23 Nov 2011, Abdul Nabi Kadhem (44), fatally wounded when his car was intentionally hit by fast-moving police vehicle, forcing him to collide with a standing wall of a building. This was the morning of the ceremony for the release of the report.

7 Dec 2011, Zahra Saleh, (27), was hit with metal rod in head on 18 Nov. The government insists that the protesters were the ones who hit her and that she had turned to the security forces for protection. My colleague went to the hospital, as well as a member of AlWefaq party, to try to speak to Zahra; both of them were stopped, questioned then turned away by Ministry of Interior employees. Also, in Bahrain, it is highly unlikely for anyone to turn to police for protection, especially someone who was supporting the protest
movement as was seen on her facebook page.

11th Dec 2011, Sajida Faisal (5 days old) dies from teargas suffocation, according to her parents: http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4898

Attacks on all-types gatherings:

- Mourners have been attacked in Aali.

- Religious processions were attacked in Muharraq by the security forces, then by the thugs.

- Ministry of Interior yesterday prevented an "authorized" sit-in by sacked workers in front of the civil service bureau, and dispersed the crowds by force.

- Protests, small or large, continue to be attacked in the same way. Security forces continue to shoot excessive amounts of teargas on residential areas as collective punishment (http://yfrog.com/od8xblij,
http://yfrog.com/mgpzaphj). Teargas used is made in USA, France and Brazil.

Injuries showed the continued use of: Shotgun, teargas and rubber bullets.

Tonight there were heavy attacks on protesters in several villages, this came after a huge protest earlier in the day in front of the United Nations building due to a visit by OHCHR staff to the country.

http://mypict.me/index.php?id=331492144. Tomorrow protesters have planned to set up a similar "Pearl square gathering" with tents but along the Budaiya Highway. The organizers have urged people not to block the roads, and to remain peaceful at all times.

It is important to note that despite the many injuries we saw today (including pellets in eyes), protesters are still not able to seek medical attention at the hospital as it continues to be under the control of the army, and instead have o attempt to treat themselves at home.

Arrest continued following the daily protests. Arrested people not necessary protesters. Many are children under 18.

We have received a number of cases from families that their detained relatives are still being subjected to torture.

Religious places…attacked with teargas canisters in two occasions, in Aali during mourning of AbdulNabi, and later after attacking a religious procession in Muharraq.

Several journalists (including columnist Nicholas Kristoff) have faced harassment including brief detention and being tear gassed (EPA/DPA, Reuters, NYTimes, Washington post) http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4897

Trials continued of teachers, doctors and others. Three athletes were sentenced up to 1 year. (It's not clear if these are included in the ecent pardon for athletes) http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4869.

Human Rights Watch observer was banned from entry to court. Teachers trial adjourned to the 19th (http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4903).

Mustafa AlMoamen, brother of Ali AlMoamen who was killed on 17th February, was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment today for illegal gathering and inciting hatred against the regime, not first case where brother of someone killed is imprisoned. The judge is a member of the royal family. Trials of doctors postponed until January 9th. Continuation with case against 28 doctors charged with misdemeanors, adding charge of possession of white weapons. Case against 139 people for illegal assembly postponed until March.

New batch of government employees including teachers has been suspended from work for up to 10 days (no salary). New sacking Ministry of Justice (Minster is a member of the formed committee to follow up BICI recommendations). News in papers yesterday of reinstatement of 480 sacked workers not true as my colleague met with the health workers who stated that no one had been returned to work.
The case of dismissed workers can be example of how the king is not obliged to BICI recommendations. On 1 July Bassiouni (head of the Commission) told the media "King PROMISED me to return those dismissed for expressing their opinions" http://t.co/zG7sOd8o and the govt issued PR releases saying "PM gave the private sector 10 days to reinstate wrongfully sacked employees" http://t.co/lpg9baDx , however thousands still sacked.

Attempt to hinder and hijack civil society associations: the recent dismissal of the legitimate elected board of the Bahrain Bar Society: http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4890

Conditions at central prison,"Jaw", has become even worsen after the publication of report. Less hours outside cell, restrictions on excercize of religious rituals, no hot water for showers, families not allowed to bring winter clothes, despite number of detainees suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia and other health problems.

Hunger strike started at cell 7 in the Dry Docks prison, and the Central police station against arbitrary arrest, torture and demanding their release. Two of the detainees who were taken to court today fainted as they are entering their 5th day or hunger strike. When the trial hearing adjourned, detainees Sayed Ahmed Neama, Mohamed Saleh and Abdullah Maki were beaten by the police in front of the lawyers.

Violence inciting increased online by the pro-gov, some with real names like the ex-colonial Adel Falifel, sending threats directly to Human Rights defenders while no action taken against him (this is a country which arrested people for their pro-democracy online posts).

Adel Fulaifal is a known torturer from the 90's and the reason he was not held accountable is because of Decree 56 which was issued by King Hamad granting amnesty to all those guilty of crimes of torture during
the 90's. Many still hold positions in government.

The National Commission said its priorities are the dismissed workers and students, and the religious places, which are indeed priority, but how come the martyrs and detainees are not on the very top priority list?

It seems the PM is now publicly inciting against the pro-democracy protesters (Arabic): video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCPK_YkJaPc&feature=related

Government Actions since the report:

Interview with the King yesterday, in which he "denied systematic rights abuses during the handling of protests earlier this year" and insisted some protesters were being trained in Syria. http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=319679
Labyrinth of follow-up committees:

National Commission: 18 members appointed by the king, mostly members of the Shura council, human rights activist (Abdullah AlDurazi), minister of justice, others. After their first meeting they have been divided into new 3 sub-committees to deal with legislative issues, judicial issues and national reconciliation. Two members of Alwefaq were invited by they have rejected the invitation.

Following their first meeting the commission announced that "All proposals brought forward for discussion will be approved by consensus". Government work group: formed by the PM as per the king order. They have to study the BICI report and to cooperate with the National Committees to implement the recommendations.
Reform to MOI:

Appointment of John Timoney, the former Miami Police Chief known for brutality and Former Metropolitan police Chief John Yates known for a phone hacking scandal.

Bahrain's head of public security Tariq bin Dinah was dismissed then appointed security adviser.

Minister said there would be cooperation with international rganizations to develop a curricula to train ministry personnel. This will lead to the drafting of a code of conduct for the police force. He confirmed the commencement of a study to draft legislations that would guarantee visual and audio recording for all official questioning of detainees.

The Prime Minister today participated in the Ministry of Interior's celebration of the "policeman day".

Authorities in Bahrain say prosecutors have charged 20 members of the security forces for alleged abuse of protesters they are responsible for "instances of excessive force and mistreatment of detainees".

Royal pardon to 100 athletes, not unconditional release with dropping of all charges. No other releases, not even those mentioned in the tortured cases.

National Security Head Sheikh Khalifa bin Abdullah Al-Khalifa promoted to General Secretary of the Supreme Council of Defence and he king's advisor with Minster rank.

A new head (Adel bin Khalifa Hamad Al Fadhel) was appointed for the National Security Apparatus. Its responsibilities have been amended so that the NSA has no right to arrest suspects, while its dutiesare limited to collecting intelligence information, and detecting and uncovering detrimental activities relating to spying, and collaboration with foreign countries and terror in order to safeguard national security, institutions and systems. The NSA shall refer to the Interior Ministry all cases requiring arrests.

[We have called for the dissolution of the National Security Apparatus and the Special Security Apparatus and the return of their jurisdictions to the regular security apparatuses; ]

Government announced that the Red Cross allowed access to the prisons. This might be the only real step, but if these visits actually start now and not after two years [we are calling on Bahrain to sign the Optional Protocol against Torture, which involved that there will be a tanding committee to visit the prisons any time and that the visits could be sudden]

The Interior Minister issued an order to the public prosecutor to investigate all deaths and torture cases implicating the police. Both the Minister of Interior and the public prosecutor should be investigated and tried for violations against human rights. End of Report.

Unlike many other nations involved in versions of the Arab Spring, Bahrain pays careful attention to the positions taken by the U.S. Government. Bahrain has a strategic importance to the US because it is
the home of the US Fifth Fleet.

Thus far, the US has spoken out against the brutality involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations, but has not taken sides. It finds itself eager not to anger the Saudis, who provided troops to Bahrain some months
ago at the request of the King. The Saudis were unhappy with the speed at which it says President Obama threw Egypt's Hosni Mubarak under the bus.

The US is also interested in minimizing the influence of Iran among Bahraini Shia, who make up a majority of the subjects of the Sunni King.

The US applauded the King's appointment of an independent fact-finding commission headed by a well-known international jurist, and has urged the King to lose no time creating a structure for constructive dialogue.

But a one-party dialogue is a monologue. And just how Bahrain will reach a point of dialogue is unclear when peaceful protesters continue to fill the streets and the security forces continue to kill, injure and imprison them.

ICE Targets Even Fewer Criminals

2011-12-18T14:07:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Last year, a controversial immigration enforcement program designed to trigger deportation proceedings against serious criminals in the US illegally, was severely criticized for managing to apprehend criminals comprising only 16.5 of total cases. This year, from July to September, only 13.8 per cent of the total were charged with having engaged in criminal activities.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University said that its findings "appear to contrast sharply" with the White House's announcement that: "Under the President's direction, for the first time ever the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States." TRAC said the findings also are "hard to reconcile with ICE's recent press statements that claimed that during the past year the agency had targeted a large and increasing number of convicted criminals for deportation."

TRAC conducted a case-by-case analysis of records covering all proceedings filed in the Immigration Courts. They were obtained from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

EOIR, a part of the Department of Justice, administers the nation's special administrative court system charged with deciding whether noncitizens should be deported or are legally entitled to remain in the country.

In previous analyses of Secure Communities data, such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have discovered that ICE's "serious criminals" include people driving with broken taillights, others wanted for minor shoplifting offenses, and drivers who have failed to pay traffic tickets.

"Not only has ICE targeted relatively few criminals as the basis for seeking deportation in these court proceedings, but this proportion has been declining steadily throughout the past year: 15.8 percent were charged with engaging in criminal activity during the first quarter period (October - December 2010), 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January - March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April - June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July - September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent," TRAC said.

These results are based upon TRAC's analyses of case-by-case records. These same case-by-case court records showed that during FY 2011 ICE initiated deportation proceedings against 188,770 individuals who were charged only with violating immigration rules. This amounted to 83.4 percent of the total cases. The proportion charged only with violating immigration rules was up slightly over levels in FY 2010 when 81.9 percent were so charged.

The number of individuals ICE sought to deport on national security or terrorism grounds - always few in number - also fell this past year. During FY 2010 a total of 42 deportation proceedings in the Immigration Courts included these grounds. This fell to only 30 during the past year, TRAC said.

The organization was sharply critical of ICE for failing to give TRAC access to documents it is permitted to have under the Freedom of Information Act. (FOIA)

TRAC says, "Unfortunately, while the agency could easily clear up these apparent discrepancies it has chosen not to do so. Indeed, for twenty months, in clear violation of public disclosure laws, ICE has persisted in withholding from TRAC the case-by-case data TRAC requested under FOIA that the agency maintains on these same court proceedings - information precisely parallel to what the Department of Justice already determined must be released to the public from its own files. DHS and other government offices have failed to rectify this matter despite TRAC's appeals to DHS's Director of Disclosure and FOIA Operations, as well as to the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)."

TRAC added, "The records ICE is withholding would show just which ICE programs - such as Secure Communities or others - have contributed to fewer alleged criminals being targeted for deportation in court proceedings. The data would also allow the public to judge whether ICE's actual activities match ICE's announced policies to target serious criminals, and those who pose threats to public safety, as well as to better monitor how the agency exercises prosecutorial discretion in whom it seeks to deport."

In addition, TRAC says it contacted ICE's Public Relations office on November 7, 2011 asking for explanations of the figures given in the agency's October 18, 2011 press release that claimed the agency's FY 2011 accomplishments closely matched announced ICE priorities. At a meeting with ICE officials November 10, the agency promised to promptly provide answers to a series of TRAC questions that asked for details backing up the agency's claims. Again and again, however, the promised answers did not materialize. ICE's Public Affairs office continues to say the promised answers will be forthcoming.

On the basis of the extremely detailed and timely records that TRAC has obtained, "enforcement patterns can be determined for each state, Immigration Court and hearing location. What were the charges brought against each of the individuals in these various locations? What was their nationality? You can now access these detailed and highly localized portraits on TRAC's public website by accessing a new special web-based interactive tool," TRAC said.

Comprehensive data covering FY 1992 through FY 2011 are now included. TRAC's app lets you track - on a charge-by-charge basis - how well or poorly the deportation proceedings initiated by ICE actually match its announced priorities and policies. With the prosecutorial discretion ICE is asking its attorneys and enforcement personnel to exercise, are the agency's limited resources being focused on high priority targets for deportation? Those charged simply with entry without inspection are separately enumerated among these charge classes. Also included is information on whether the individual charged was a so-called "aggravated" felon, or charged with some other criminal violation.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continues to attack the program known as Secure Communities, or S-Comm, for failing to "immediately ensnare any immigrant in the deportation pipeline the moment they come into contact with the criminal justice system."

The ACLU says "Detain first, investigate later - that is Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) mantra when it comes to its Secure Communities ("S-Comm") program."

It explains: "Under S-Comm, the fingerprints of every person arrested by the police are shared with ICE at the moment they are booked into police custody. Without investigating the person's immigration status, ICE immediately sends an "immigration detainer" or a request back to the police if they want the person to continue to be detained for immigration purposes. Detain first, investigate later."

The ACLU asks, "See a problem with this? Not only does it violate the Fourth Amendment's basic prohibition against detaining a person without probable cause to do so, but it commonly ensnares the wrong people, including people who are not even immigrants, but United States citizens, causing them to be unlawfully detained."

As an example, the ACLU presents the case of Antonio Montejano, a U.S. citizen who was born in Los Angeles.

This is what the ACLU wrote: "A few weeks ago, Antonio was arrested by the Santa Monica Police Department for shoplifting. He accidentally left a Sears store without paying for the candy his young children had taken and eaten while in the store. One of his children also placed a $10 perfume bottle in a bag that had already been paid for.

"When security guards stopped Antonio, accusing him of stealing the perfume, Antonio explained that it was an honest mistake and that he would be happy to pay for it. After a long back and forth with the security guards, the police were called and Antonio was taken into custody.

"Antonio normally would have been released from Santa Monica Police custody within hours of being booked into their custody. But ICE interfered through S-Comm. When Antonio was booked, ICE immediately placed an "immigration detainer" on him, instructing the local authorities to detain him until they could pick him up.

"Antonio spent four haunting and unwarranted days in jail on the immigration detainer. For two of those days, Antonio was detained in a temporary holding cell in Los Angeles County Sheriff's custody that only had chairs, no beds. The authorities forced him to sleep on the hard floor, depriving him of any mattress or blankets, a practice the federal courts have long denounced as flagrantly unconstitutional. Antonio repeatedly protested to jail authorities that he was a U.S. citizen. But only after the ACLU of Southern California contacted a senior ICE official four days later, did they finally agree to lift the detainer.

"ICE, quite clearly, has no business arresting and detaining American citizens. But as described in a recent report by the Warren Institute at University of California - Berkeley, they do so over and over again through the fundamentally-flawed S-Comm program. (ICE's own data in the first year of S-Comm activation revealed that five percent of persons identified by S-Comm were in fact U.S. citizens.) And they do so by enlisting the unwitting participation of local jail authorities in these unconstitutional practices.

"The costs and consequences of S-Comm's detain first, investigate later are borne out every day in the jails and police stations across the country where non-deportable citizens and noncitizens suffer needless detention, while they beg for ICE to finally investigate their cases so that they may be released from jail."

President Obama has failed to keep the promise he made during his presidential campaign to introduce legislation to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, he has placed more personnel on the Southern US border, and deported more people during his term than any other president in US history.

The continued absence of a body of immigration law worthy of a superpower is no doubt due in part to the intransigence of the Republicans in Congress. And the President's relative silence on this issue must surely give the GOP the sense that immigration reform is nowhere near Obama's top priorities.

Sadly, they could well be right.

Death Sentences Drop to Lowest Number Since 1976

2011-12-17T16:03:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

The death penalty may be on the way out.

Sentences to the ultimate punishment began their downward trajectory in the late 1990s, and in the 15 years between 1996 and 2011 death sentences declined about 75 percent. In 1996, 315 individuals were sentenced to death.

New death sentences dropped to 78 in 2011, representing a dramatic decline from last year’s number of 112 and marking the first time since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 that the country has produced fewer than 100 death sentences in a single year.

These are some of main findings in the annual report of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), based on data as of mid-December 2011. The DPIC is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment.

“Many of those challenging the death penalty now had defended it in the past, including people who introduced death penalty legislation or presided over executions. The multitude of problems associated with the death penalty is gradually convincing Americans that it can no longer be sustained,” the Report says.

The Report also notes that Executions have also steadily decreased nationwide, with 43 in 2011 and 46 in 2010, representing a 56 percent decline since 1999, when there were 98. Texas had 13 executions in 2011, and 24 in 2009, representing a 46 percent drop over two years.

Further information on these data is contained in “The Death Penalty in 2011: Year End Report” which can be found at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

“This year, the use of the death penalty continued to decline by almost every measure. Executions, death sentences, public support, the number of states with the death penalty all dropped from previous years,” said Richard Dieter, DPIC’s Executive Director and the report’s author. “Whether it’s concerns about unfairness, executing the innocent, the high costs of the death penalty, or the general feeling that the government just can’t get it right, Americans moved further away from capital punishment in 2011.”

Many states with the death penalty on the books, including Maryland, South Carolina, Missouri, and Indiana, had no new death sentences this year. California had a sharp drop in death sentences in 2011, decreasing by over half since 2010 when there were 29 sentences. Repeal of the death penalty is likely to be on the ballot in that state next year.

The declining numbers occurred in the context of three significant developments in the evolution of capital punishment this year:

· Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation to repeal the death penalty, making Illinois the fourth state in four years to abandon capital punishment. A commission reported that the state had spent $100 million on assisting counties with death penalty prosecutions while the state’s deficit grew to one of the country’s largest.

· Many Americans were shocked to learn that a man, Troy Davis in Georgia, could be executed in spite of strong doubts about his guilt. Several key witnesses recanted their testimony against Davis, causing even death penalty supporters like former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr to state: “Imposing a death sentence on the skimpiest of evidence does not serve the interest of justice.”

· Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber stopped a pending execution and ordered that no others would occur during his term. Governor Kitzhaber, who oversaw two executions in the 1990s, urged citizens to “find a better solution” to a system that he said is arbitrary, expensive and “fails to meet basic standards of justice.”

Also this year, the Report noted, the Gallup Poll, which measures the public's support for the death penalty without offering alternatives, recorded the lowest level of support and the highest level of opposition in almost 40 years. Some 61 percent supported the death penalty, compared to 80 percent in 1994. Thirty-five percent were opposed, compared to 16 percent in 1994. A more in-depth CNN poll gave respondents a choice between the death penalty and life without parole for those who commit murder. Fifty percent chose a life sentence, while 48 percent chose death.

One clear sign of increasing discomfort with the death penalty has been the decline in the number of states with capital punishment in effect. Illinois joined New Mexico, New Jersey, and New York in abandoning the death penalty, marking an 11% decline in death penalty states since 2007.

Death Penalty Statistics 2011 2010 2000

Executions 43 46 85

New Inmates Under

Death Sentence 78 112 224

Death Row population

(As of Jan. 1) 3,251 3,261 3,652

Percentage of executions by region:

South (32 executions) 74% 76% 89%

Texas (13) 30% 40% 47%

Midwest (6) 14% 17% 6%

West (4) 12% 7% 5%

Northeast (0) 0% 0% 0%

Executions Since 1976: 1,277

Texas 477 (37%)

Virginia 109 (9%)

Oklahoma 96 (8%)

Report data show that three states combined – Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma – meted out 682 death sentences since 2976. That represents 53 per cent of all executions in the US. Most US executions occur in the South.

The number of new death sentences dropped dramatically in 2011, falling below 100 for the first time in the modern era of capital punishment. Executions also continued to decline, while developments in a variety of states illustrated the growing discomfort that many Americans have with the death penalty.

Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011, the governor of Oregon declared a moratorium on all executions, and a national outcry was heard around the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia because of doubts about his guilt.

In January, the Illinois legislature voted to repeal the death penalty, replacing it with a sentence of life without parole. The legislation requires some of the money saved by this action to go to victims’services and crime prevention. Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill, making Illinois the fourth state in four years to abandon capital punishment. A state commission reported $100 million had been spent on assisting counties with death penalty prosecutions over the past seven years, while the state’s deficit had become one of the largest in the country.

Illinois had not had an execution in 12 years.

In Georgia, the report declared, a very different scenario played out, but it also exposed deep concerns about the use of the death penalty. On September 21 Georgia executed Troy Davis, despite significant doubts about his guilt and urgent requests from national and international leaders to spare his life.

Davis had been convicted principally on the basis of eyewitness testimony, a form of evidence that has recently come under increasing scrutiny.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered Perry v. New Hampshire, a case questioning the validity of eyewitness testimony when the identification was made under unreliable circumstances. At the same time, years of scientific study on the accuracy of human memory are pointing to the need for reform in the use of eyewitness evidence in criminal cases.

Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University, whose experiments on memory were reported in the journal Cognitive Psychology, noted, “Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it’s overloaded. An event happens so fast, and when the police question you, you probably weren’t concentrating on the details they’re asking about.”

About 75% of DNA-based exonerations have come in cases where eyewitnesses have made mistakes. Scientists suggest that witness testimony should be viewed more like trace evidence, with the same fragility and vulnerability to contamination. Strong emotions felt by victims of a crime is one such possible area of contamination. Gary Wells, a psychology professor at Iowa State University, found that the accuracy of lineups improves when the possible suspects are presented to witnesses in sequence, rather than all at once, as in the traditional lineup. The downfall of side-by-side lineups, Dr. Wells said, is that “if the real perpetrator is not in there, there is still someone who looks more like him than the others.” The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently promulgated new rules for dealing with the problems of eyewitness identification.

Years after his trial, 7 of the 9 state witnesses against Davis changed their stories. A federal judge in Savannah conducted a hearing to review this new evidence, but in order to grant Davis a new trial the judge required not only that he establish reasonable doubt of his guilt, but that he provide clear proof of his innocence, which he was unable to do to the judge’s satisfaction.

A former head of the FBI, along with former judges, prosecutors, and elected leaders from around the country urged the Board of Pardons and Paroles to intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Citizens protested in front of the White House, the Supreme Court, and the Georgia prison where the execution took place. Similar demonstrations occurred in cities around the world.

People were shocked that in the U.S. someone could be executed despite so much doubt about his guilt. When Davis was denied clemency, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia said, “Imposing a death sentence on the skimpiest of evidence does not serve the interest of justice.”

Even former supporters of the death penalty found the process so inflexible and unresponsive that they were convinced the system is not working. President Jimmy Carter said, "If one of our fellow citizens can be executed with so much doubt surrounding his guilt, then the death penalty system in our country is unjust and outdated."

Finally, in Oregon on Governor John Kitzhaber halted a pending execution and declared that no additional executions would occur during his tenure. He urged the legislature and the people of the state to seek a sensible way to address serious crime: "I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values," he stated. "I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am Governor."

Figuring out the ‘why’ of the death penalty’s decline is complicated. But the statements of governors who have the life and death responsibility may shed some light on the underlying reasons.

Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon put a halt to executions in 2011, stating,” Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all. It is a perversion of justice that the single best indicator of who will and will not be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the findings of a jury. The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer.”

Gil Garcetti, the former district attorney of Los Angeles who pursued numerous death sentences, said California's death penalty is dysfunctional and the resources spent on it should be diverted to more pressing needs.

"California's death penalty does not and cannot function the way its supporters want it to. It is also an incredibly costly penalty, and the money would be far better spent keeping kids in school, keeping teachers and counselors in their schools and giving the juvenile justice system the resources it needs. Spending our tax dollars on actually preventing crimes, instead of pursuing death sentences after they've already been committed, will assure us we will have fewer victims."

Garcetti said the death penalty causes ongoing torment to the family members and friends of murder victims: "The living victims of a particular crime might think that a death verdict provides closure, but for most, there was no such closure."

Many of those who have analyzed the system of capital punishment, including leaders in law enforcement, former supporters of the death penalty and victims’ families, have concluded the system is seriously flawed. Among those who spoke out this year were:

Dr. Allen Ault, a retired Georgia prison warden, underscored the difficult issues prison officials face when participating in an execution: "You're killing somebody. And there’s no denying that, especially when we know that several people have been declared innocent with the new scientific techniques, and we're not real sure if the individual we're executing this evening or next week is really guilty -that in itself, that kind of doubt. The other thing most of us know [is] all the research which indicates that capital punishment does not deter . . . it seems so illogical to say to the public we do not want you to kill, and to demonstrate that, we're going to kill individuals."

Kathryn Gaines, Rita Shoulders, Victoria Cox and Ruth Lowe had someone in their family murdered but believe a death Sentence for the killers would only deepen their personal wounds. Shoulders lost her sister to murder; Cox lost her brother; Lowe also lost her brother; and Gaines her eldest grandchild. Ruth Lowe said of the man who killed her brother, "I’m learning to forgive. And even if I had the chance, I wouldn’t want him Year executed. It would do nothing for me; it would do nothing for the rest of my family. To take his life would make no sense.” Kathryn Gaines said, "You cannot bring a life back by taking away another life. It hurts a whole family."

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo advocated for a sentence of life without parole to replace the death penalty: "There is a punishment that is much better than the death penalty: one that juries will not be reluctant to impose; one that is so menacing to a potential killer, that it could actually deter; one that does not require us to be infallible so as to avoid taking an innocent life; and one that does not require us to stoop to the level of the killers."

Don Heller, a Republican former prosecutor and author of the 1978 ballot initiative that greatly expanded California's death penalty law, now says, "I never contemplated the staggering cost of implementing the death penalty: more than $4 billion to date and approximately $185 million projected per year in ongoing costs. . . . It makes no sense to prop up such a failed system.”

But for many, the following statement carries the highest level of credibility: It comes from Jeanne Woodford, former Warden of San Quentin prison in California.

She said of the death penalty, “The death penalty serves no one. It doesn't serve the victims. It doesn't serve prevention. It's truly all about retribution." She added, “There comes a time when you have to ask if a penalty that is so permanent can be available in such an imperfect system. The only guarantee against executing the innocent is to do away with the death penalty.”

Our U-Turn President

2011-12-16T17:24:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised. President Obama has done enough 180-degree last minute change-ups to make his opponents chuckle up their sleeves and his supporters become impotently furious.

Furious because they will have to vote for Obama in November. Impotent because they feel they have no other choice. Waking up on Nov 5th and finding Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney as Commander-in-Chief would create a national shortage of cardiologists.

For progressives, what may help cushion the blow a bit is the memory of all this all having happened before. The catalog of 180’s is long and painful. It started with the President’s pledge – on his first day in office – to close Guantanamo. For a variety of reasons – principally Congress’s unreasoned hysteria about trying accused terrorists in our regular court system and therefore setting the stage for exonerations – and then we’d have Arabs walking up and down our main streets, dating our daughters and running for the school board (while they built “dirty bombs” in their rented rooms).

Our recent memories are packed with Obama’s numerous other U-Turns. For example, he continues the CIA’s program of extraordinary renditions to countries with long records of prisoner torture.

After releasing two of the so-called “torture memos” prepared by lawyers in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, he dug his heels in about further releases and about prosecuting CIA officials and agents for torturing prisoners, saying he’d rather look forward than backward.

His lawyers continue to invoke “state secrets” privileges in terror-related court cases, effectively silencing those who looked to the courts to hear their stories of abuse by the Bush Administration.

His fence-sitting at the beginning of the Arab Spring, which caused him, for example, to describe fallen Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak as “a stalwart ally,” and virtually abandon the pro-freedom demonstrators in tiny Bahrain because of its strategic importance as the home of the US Fifth Fleet.

Then there are the multiple flip-flops in the non-national security category, topped most recently by his “compromise” with the Republicans to reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling and trying to avoid a default on the country’s debt and a downgrade in US Securities. The agreement was reached, and the GOP was overjoyed. The default was avoided, but the downgrade came anyway.

Now comes the latest incarnation of the same modus vivendi adopted by Obama on many other issues – his shocking turnabout regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A tiny part of the gargantuan funding bill for the Pentagon, it has taken on huge importance because of what it does to our justice system.

It authorizes the Pentagon to arrest suspected terrorists – including American citizens and regardless of where they are arrested – and detain them indefinitely without charge or trial. For a nation that prides itself on being rooted in the rule of law, it establishes a two-tier system of justice, with our regular courts doing what courts mostly do, but no longer trying accused terrorists.

These will be tried at Guantanamo, and if they are acquitted, the Department of Justice has made clear that they will be held anyway. But there’s little danger of acquittal, since GITMO’s Military Commissions are structured to obtain convictions, not acquittals.

Courts, on the other hand, are designed to achieve justice. Without help from the military, our courts have tried and convicted several thousand accused terrorists. Our civil judges would seem to know the drill, but Congress evidently never got the memo.

But a flock of prestigious military and civilian authorities did. Opposition to the detention provisions of the legislation came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and Lisa Monaco, head of DOJ’s National Security Division. The Senate ignored them all.

So President Obama trotted out one of his standard excuses for flip-flopping. Noting that last minute “tweaks” in the legislation in Conference Committee now made it acceptable to the Administration, Obama backed off his veto threat and signaled that he will sign this odious bill.

His rationale is familiar: Had he not obtained the changes that made the bill signable into law, the measure would have failed in its final vote, triggering a government shutdown. To avoid that, and the disruption it would create, compromise with the Republicans and some conservative Democrats was essential.

So in the end, the Republicans will get all they wanted – a Draconian law that, inter alia, makes the entire US a battlefield, plus the campaign-ready perception of Obama as a weakling, not ready to meet the GOP on the political battlefield. That, of course, will strengthen the public’s perception of Democrats historically being soft on terror (despite the deaths of Osama bin Laden, et al.).

I have to believe that the chief advantage Obama wanted from this legislation was yet more authority flying out of Congress and landing in the Executive Branch of government. Many observers believe that this is a power-grab by the President that is even more outrageously unconstitutional than the claim of George W. Bush that the government could spy on American citizens at will, without probable cause, and without oversight by anyone.

At the end of the day, this legislation will make counter-terrorism more difficult for the US, and evoke suspicion from many democratic nations who are spooked by the arrested without due process and held indefinitely without charge or trial.

Nor will it do anything good for America’s reputation in the world. After an initial burst of goodwill following his election and his Cairo speech, US prestige has been on a dramatically downward trajectory, further fuelled by The Arab Spring.

Even more reason why I take my hat off to Laura Murphy of the ACLU for her tenacity and optimism. At this, the 11th hour, she is still imploring the President not to sign the bill. It’s probably too late.

But she says, “The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law. If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and America’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

I wish her the luck of the Irish. But I am not so optimistic.

The Part of Our Justice System No One Wants You to Know About

2011-12-16T17:20:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Remember Mike Nifong? Sure. He’s the sleazebag former District Attorney in the Duke University lacrosse team’s stripper rape scandal back in 2006. He made himself a short-lived hero by agreeing to prosecute members of the Duke Lacrosse team for allegedly raping an Africa-American stripper and dancer the team had hired for a party.

But Nifong, hell bent on winning reelection, forgot that he was an officer of the Court. He went public with a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue; he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions; he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation; he tried to manipulate potential witnesses; he refused to hear exculpatory evidence prior to indictment; that regulations on the conduct of an identification exercise were breached by failure to include "dummy" photographs; that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations; and that he made misleadingly incomplete presentations of various aspects of the evidence in the case (including DNA results).

He was dismissed from his job and later disbarred.

Or how about federal prosecutor William Welch, and his deputy chief, Brenda Morris, who convicted Senator Ted Stevens -- and helped their own cause by withholding evidence from the defense that could have helped the defendant.

Or there’s Richard Convertino, the lead prosecutor in the so-called Detroit Sleeper Cell terrorism case. He was removed from the case on suspicion that he allegedly failed to turn over photographic evidence to the defense.

These acts and alleged acts by prosecutors all qualify as prosecutorial misconduct. There are hundreds of such cases in our justice system every year. Very few of them ever get such high visibility. In fact, most abuses of this kind probably go unnoticed and unreported. In the three cases referenced above, only Nifong lost his law license. The others did not.

But, since 9/11, there has been another kind of misconduct growing. It usually takes place outside the courtroom and is a favorite of politicians of both parties, especially if they are running for reelection.

This is the phenomenon of politicians and others with private agendas calling press conferences to launch inflammatory – and usually false or grossly exaggerated – claims about the importance of a given case to the national security of the United States.

Examples are legion. When Jose Padilla was arrested for what the press told us was an attempt to explode a “dirty bomb” (a nuclear device) in the middle of New York City, then Attorney General John Ashcroft was in Moscow.

He immediately reorganized his day and hurriedly called a press conference where he trumpeted Padilla’s apprehension in what TIME called a “fear-inducing video hookup.”

Ashcroft was surely on a roll that day. But is was not long before it began to be clear that, to quote TIME again, “[Padilla] is not the deadly, skilled operative Attorney General John Ashcroft seemed to be describing when he announced Padilla's arrest… In fact, history may judge the Administration's legal treatment of Padilla—locking him up indefinitely with no plan to try him—as more alarming than Padilla himself.”

When Padilla was finally arraigned in Federal Court, the “dirty bomb” charge was nowhere to be found.

Then there was the prosecution of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an oncologist from Manlius, NY, a community near Syracuse. Dhafir was arrested in February 2003 in a raid that drew nationwide media coverage. Long before his trial began, he was labeled “a terrorist” by then Attorney General Ashcroft and then New York Gov. George Pataki.

On the day of the arrest Ashcroft announced that “funders of terrorism” had been arrested. And just before Dhafir’s trial began in October 2004, Pataki described the case as a “money laundering case to help terrorist organizations … conduct horrible acts,” an announcement perfectly timed to reach potential jurors.

But no reference to terrorism or to Dhafir’s Muslim faith was permitted in court, and no terrorism charges were ever brought against him. His supporters claim he was “selectively prosecuted.”

Dhafir was convicted in February 2005 of 59 criminal counts, including money laundering, conspiracy to violate US sanctions against Iraq, misusing $2 million that donors contributed to his unlicensed charity, Help the Needy, spending $544,000 for his own purposes, defrauding Medicare out of $316,000, and evading $400,000 in federal income tax payments by writing off the illegal charity donations. No terrorism here.

Politicians outside the courtroom intentionally hyping the extreme dangers presented by defendants have become standard practice. This has occurred numerous times when it was clear that the alleged “terrorists” were pathetic down-and-outers who many believe had been entrapped by the FBI.
What politicians say at their press conferences is intended to achieve one objective only: to plant doubt in the minds of prospective jurors.

Independent activist Katherine Hughes adds that, “In Dr. Dhafir’s case, they also transformed his community image from a compassionate humanitarian into a crook and supporter of terrorists.”

And just a few days ago, we recall New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg convening a hastily organized press conference to announce the arrest of one Jose Pimentel.

Flanked by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Bloomberg said:

“Yesterday afternoon, New York City police officers arrested a 27-year-old Al Qaeda sympathizer who was plotting to bomb police patrol cars and also postal facilities, as well as target members of our Armed Forces returning from abroad. Jose Pimentel of Washington Heights, which is in the northern end of Manhattan, faces terrorism-related charges….”

Bloomberg also got an opportunity to praise the work of New York’s Finest.

“The NYPD Intelligence Division did outstanding work in tracking this individual and containing the threat he posed to the city. The police constructed a duplicate of an explosive device that the suspect built, and then detonated it in a way that he intended to use his weapon. We wanted to show you a video about the resulting damage,” he said.
He went on: “The suspect was a so-called lone wolf, motivated by his own resentment of the presence of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as inspired by Al Qaeda propaganda. He was not part of a larger conspiracy emanating from abroad. He represents exactly the kind of threat FBI Director Robert Mueller and his experts have warned about, as American military and intelligence agencies have eroded Al Qaeda's ability to launch large-scale attacks.

“This case is also reminiscent of another lone wolf plot in 2004 in which two New Yorkers angry over the treatment of prisoners in Iraq plotted to bomb the Herald Square subway station. Like the current case, the Herald Square plot was uncovered by the NYPD Intelligence Division.

“And as with still another case earlier this year in which a lone wolf plotted to attack a large synagogue, the NYPD teamed-up with the Manhattan District Attorney's office to prosecute Pimentel under State terrorism-related statutes.
“Whether launched by lone wolves, Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda affiliates, there have been at least 13 previous terrorist plots since 9/11 targeting New York City. This would be the fourteenth.

“Because of such repeated threats, the NYPD remains focused on preventing another terrorist attack. We assign a thousand officers to counter-terrorism duties every single day. This is just another case where our precautions paid off."

Some journalists covering the story simply transcribed Bloomberg’s words. Others were suspicious. Did Bloomberg rush this arrest and press conference to divert attention away from the conflicts with the Occupy movement, whose members, as well as some journalists, had just been driven out of Liberty Square, and their tents and other equipment destroyed by police? And where was the FBI? The Bureau participates in almost all such events with the mayor and with less city lights. Soon we learned that the FBI was saying it would not have made this arrest.

That’s a big statement for that agency, which has been suspected by many of using paid informants to entrap gullible individuals, and get them involved in terror plots. However, many of these so-called plots look like children’s games. In others, the alleged perpetrators look so disheveled, bedraggled, disoriented, that they seem like the last people who would be capable of carrying out a terror plot.
In addition to trying to influence juries with incendiary and fear-provoking pronouncements, politicians and the law enforcement agencies they support employ a second technique – in some ways, worse than the false accusations.
This is the designation known as the “person of interest.” This insidious label has the capacity to put life on hold, to turn lives upside down, to bankrupt citizens unable to pay lawyers’ fees to try to prove their innocence.

Remember Richard Jewell? To refresh your memory, Jewell, 33, was working as a security guard at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. The Atlanta Police have received a message saying, "There is a bomb in Centennial Park. You have 30 minutes." Jewell was working in Centennial Park.

At 1:20 a.m., a pipe bomb exploded near a huge sound-and-light tower erected by AT&T, which had become a major attraction for visitors to Centennial Olympic Park. The blast killed two people and injured 111 others.

Richard Jewell was the hero of the incident. He was responsible for finding the backpack that had contained the bomb, and for getting people out of the immediate area, thus probably limiting further death and injury.

But four days after the bombing, news organizations reported that Jewell had become the main focus of their investigation as a potential suspect in the bombing. At the time, Jewell was unknown to authorities, and a lone wolf profile made sense to FBI investigators after being contacted by his former employer at Piedmont College.

Though he was never arrested or charged with any crime, Jewell was named as a "person of interest.” His home, where he lived with his mother, was searched and his background exhaustively investigated, all amid a media storm that had cameras following him to the grocery store. Eventually, Jewell was exonerated, and once again hailed as a hero. The media circus pursued Jewell everywhere for weeks, until Eric Rudolph pled guilty to carrying out the bombing attack at the Centennial Olympic Park, as well as three other attacks across the South.

After his exoneration, Jewell filed a series of lawsuits against the media outlets which he claimed had libeled him, primarily NBC News and The Atlanta Constitution, and insisted on a formal apology from them. Jewell's attorneys contend Piedmont College President Raymond Cleere called the FBI and spoke to the Atlanta newspapers, providing them with false information on Jewell and his employment there as a security guard. Jewell's lawsuit accused Cleere of describing Jewell as a "badge-wearing zealot" who "would write epic police reports for minor infractions." Eventually he received an apology from the FBI.

Toward the end of the incident, broadcast host Bill Press discussed Jewell on television. Turning to Larry Sabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia, a guest on the program, he commented, "He (Jewell) did a pretty good job of destroying his own reputation, first, didn't he, Larry?"

To which Sabato replied, "You know, Bill, that's a great example of what happens when some poor soul, and I'm going to assume he's innocent until it's proven otherwise, some poor soul wanders into the media spotlight, because that's what happens. I remember the fellow who deflected the gun from President Ford out in California in 1975 and he saved the president's life and within 48 hours, a newspaper had revealed to his family, who didn't know, that he was gay."

Unlike Jewell, Steven Hatfill was never seen as a hero. But, just as Jewell’s life had been turned upside down by law enforcement, Hatfill’s also became a living hell.

Steven Jay Hatfill, now 60, is an American physician, virologist and bio-weapons expert who underwent what was considered by many to be a trial by media with great toll on his personal and professional life. After eight months of pressure from the media and amateur detectives, the US Department of Justice identified the former government scientist as a "person of interest" in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. He was put under 24/7 surveillance.

FBI searches of his apartment in July and August 2002 were well-attended by journalists, many of whom had been pointing at Dr. Hatfill for months.
Dr. Hatfill later sued the government for ruining his reputation, a case that the government settled for US$5.8 million. He also filed lawsuits against several periodicals that had pointed to him as a figure warranting further investigation.

The situation became even more tragic when FBI and DOJ officials later blamed the anthrax deaths on another government scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, whom they concluded had acted alone. Ivins committed suicide. The case remains unsolved.

The abuses described here are miscarriages of justice, whether they occur in or outside a court. Politicians and law enforcement agencies depend on a supine press corps to circulate their stories all over the world in minutes. With the help of a media more skilled in stenography than in reporting, unsubstantiated rumors are printed and broadcast as facts. If further investigation is done by the media (which is rare) corrections often appear, if at all, long after the event. Yet they can rob you of your reputation before you have a chance to respond.

To be the target of a media blitz is tantamount to being found guilty of something. When a politician or an overly zealous prosecutor tags you as a dangerous terrorist before you ever go to court, you might as well not go to court. Such is the fear of terror that has pervaded our country since 9/11 that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has even successfully dictated where and how to try those accused of terrorism.

Is there anything ordinary citizens can do about these kinds of events? Unfortunately, not much. We should be urging our political leaders to choose their words more carefully and to show more respect for the rule of law. We should reign in over-zealous prosecutors who see their mission in life as collecting scalps. And we should be campaigning in Congress for substantial revisions in the “material support” law.

Politicians, judges, prosecutors and lawmakers need to demonstrate that they know the difference between governance and show business!

Ordinary citizens can’t censor what politicians say. And Judges could do a far better job of censoring what lawyers say (or fail to say) in court.
Perhaps the simplest target for irate citizens is the “person of interest” designation. The phrase has no legal meaning; it is administrative verbiage that law enforcement uses to show the public it’s working hard to find to find the guilty.

That phrase should be expunged from the Justice Department’s lexicon.

And that’s well within the President’s prerogatives.

.

America’s Toughest Sheriff Still Defiant. DOJ Probe “Political.”

2011-12-16T17:12:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

After the Justice Department charged that Joe Arpaio -- who likes to call himself America’s toughest sheriff -- discriminated against Latinos and punished those who complained, the cop whose defiance of the Feds became his mantra reacted true to form: he again defied the Feds by labeling the charges “political.”

In a sharply-worded rebuke following a three-year investigation, the Department of Justice said in a letter that the office headed by the larger-than-life sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix) showed “a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos” that included “the highest levels of the agency.” The letter also noted that, earlier in its investigation, Arpaio had refused to cooperate and forced the DOJ to sue him, obliging Arpaio and his deputies to cooperate.

The 22-page letter, signed by Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, is addressed to the Maricopa County Attorney. If Arpaio and his office refused to enter into a court-approved settlement agreement, the government would file a lawsuit to compel compliance.

The letter is also seen as the opening salvo of a legal war against Arpaio and his methods. The DOJ is currently conducting a separate federal grand jury investigation into allegations of abuse of power by the department’s public corruption department and for denying the civil rights of those they apprehend or imprison.

Adding yet more weight to the DOJ letter, Arpaio – who has been reelected to his post four times – is up for reelection in 2014. Some observers believe that the growth of the County’s Latino population, and its increasing political sophistication, could spell trouble for the 79-year-old lawman.

The DOJ said the allegations its letter were based on interviewing more than 400 inmates, deputies and others, including Arpaio and his senior deputies, visiting the jail, and reading internal documents numbering into the thousands of pages.

The investigation concluded that Latinos in Maricopa County were receiving “second-class policing services” and that a “culture of bias” exists in Arpaio’s office. At a news briefing, the DOJ spokesman said, “We have to do cultural change and culture change starts with people at the top.”

In a related development, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano – a former governor of Arizona -- announced that, as a result of the DOJ’s findings, the federal government would no longer allow Arpaio’s deputies to use the DHS database to check the immigration status of inmates in their custody.

Arpaio’s office has participated in several DHS programs, including one known as 287(g), which empowers local law enforcement officers to enforce Federal immigration law. That program has been widely criticized on a number of grounds, including the local police or sheriff’s lack of experience enforcing complex immigration law. Because of the DOJ investigation, his participation in this program was terminated by the DHS.

The DHS also limited the sheriff’s office’s access to the database it uses for another of its more controversial programs, known as Secure Communities. This program allows local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of people it has in custody and to notify the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), which handles deportation proceedings. The program was designed to identify serious criminals in the US illegally and has been heavily criticized for identifying for deportation people arrested for committing minor crimes, such as speeding or driving with a broken taillight.

The DHS said in a statement, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is troubled by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust. DHS will not be a party to such practices. Accordingly, and effective immediately, DHS is terminating MCSO’s 287(g) jail model agreement and is restricting the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office access to the Secure Communities program.

“This is a sad day for America as a whole,” Sheriff Arpaio told The New York Times. “We are proud of the work we have done to fight illegal immigration,” he said, adding that he is merely following the law.

But the DOJ investigation found mountains of evidence that the sheriff’s office were practicing the most egregious forms of racial profiling in targeting Latinos.

Their letter said “The absence of clear policies and procedures to ensure effective and constitutional policing, along with the deviations from widely accepted policing and correctional practices, and the failure to implement meaningful oversight and accountability structures, have contributed to a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations.”

The DOJ said that a substantial percentage of the incident reports filed after traffic-related stops suggest that these stops may have violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures.

The report also noted that Sheriff Arpaio had conducted numerous raids targeting illegal immigrants. These raids were highly publicized and were sometimes prompted by complaints simply referred to people with “dark skin” or to Spanish speakers congregating in an area. “The use of these types of bias-infected indicators as a basis for conducting enforcement activity contributes to the high number of stops and detentions lacking in legal justification,” the report said.

Sheriff Arpaio has become the darling of Republican candidates for the presidency. He has had visits from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, and Herman Cain, who has since dropped out of the race. Arpaio has endorsed Governor Perry.

Arpaio has won reelection four times by hefty margins. But in recent months, his popularity appears to have somewhat declined due to allegations that his department misappropriated county funds and failed to adequately investigate more than 400 sexual-abuse cases, where many of the complainants were illegal immigrants.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and detention of a U.S. citizen and a legal resident by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) deputies. It is described below as fairly typical of the tactics used by Arpaio’s officers. It was written by the lawyers for two men who were driving down a public roadway when they were stopped and arrested without justification, and transported to the site of an immigration raid.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of Julian Mora, a legal permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. for 30 years, and his son Julio Mora, a US citizen, against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County. The lawsuit charges that the MCSO deputies racially profiled the father and son as they drove their pickup truck on a busy public road and illegally arrested and detained them, violating the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law and prohibition on unreasonable seizures.

Julian Mora was driving to work when, without provocation, an MCSO vehicle cut in front of him forcing him to stop abruptly. MCSO deputies then ordered the father and son out of their vehicle, then frisked and handcuffed them. Although the deputies had no reason to believe that the Moras had broken any law or were in the country unlawfully, they transported the Moras to Handyman Maintenance, Inc. (HMI), where MCSO was conducting a raid that morning. For the next three hours, the Moras were held in handcuffs at HMI, where they were denied food and water and forbidden contact with the outside world. They were not released until they were interrogated.

The ordeal was particularly humiliating for 66-year-old Julian Mora who, due to his diabetic condition, has difficulty controlling his bladder and had an urgent need to use the bathroom. MCSO personnel, however, rejected his repeated requests. Eventually, deputies escorted him outside where he was made to urinate in the parking lot. MCSO personnel later mocked his son Julio when he had to use the bathroom, because he had difficulty going with his hands still cuffed.

"To this day, I don't know why the officers stopped us out of all the cars on the road," said 19-year-old Julio Mora. "We were treated like criminals and never told why. I was very scared. I never thought something like this would happen to me. Now I know it can happen to anyone, citizens too. I don't think it's fair."

The federal lawsuit was settled when Arpaio’s lawyer agreed to a $200,000 payout to the Moras.

There are more than a thousand other lawsuits pending against Arpaio and his office. Many of these types of suits have been settled out of court, limiting the availability of details. But the cost of the settlements to the County are substantial.

The DOJ investigation has focused on the Sheriff’s office (MCSO's) compliance with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 and its implementing regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq. ("Title VI"). Section 14141 prohibits law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, from engaging in activities that amount to a pattern or practice of violating the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Title VI and its implementing regulations provide that recipients of federal financial assistance, such as MCSO, may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. These laws give the United States the authority to file legal action and obtain the necessary relief to ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Abu Ghraib Redux

2011-12-09T11:05:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Over the past few months, senior US military figures have been taking to the airways to reassure the public that the bulk of American and NATO forces will be ready to leave Afghanistan by 2014. Newspaper, cable news, broadcast networks – they’ve all carried prominently positioned and optimistic accounts of the excellent training the Afghan army and police are receiving and how this will make the Afghans ready to defend their country and establish the rule of law.

But then I came across a recent UN report that caused me to question everything I thought I knew. Here’s what it said:

Nearly half the prisoners in Afghan jails – including children under 18 -- have been tortured to extract confessions and deprived of the most basic due process protections, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). The UN body is calling on Afghan authorities to “take all possible steps to end and prevent torture, and provide accountability for all acts of torture.”

The Mission’s conclusions are based on interviews conducted from October 2010 to August 2011 with 379 pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners at 47 detention facilities in 22 provinces across Afghanistan.

In total, 324 of the 379 persons interviewed were detained by National Directorate of Security (NDS) or Afghan National Police (ANP) forces for national security crimes -- suspected of being Taliban fighters, suicide attack facilitators, producers of improvised explosive devices, and others implicated in crimes associated with the armed conflict in Afghanistan.

The US and its NATO allies are currently training both the police force and the security services to keep the peace and maintain law and order in the country. It is unclear whether their training extends to professional prison procedures.

In situations where torture occurred, it typically took the form of abusive interrogation practices used to obtain confessions from individuals detained on suspicion of crimes against the State. The practices documented meet the international definition of torture.

Torture occurs when State officials, acting in their official capacity inflict or order, consent or acquiesce to the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering against an individual to obtain a confession or information, or to punish or discriminate against the individual.

Such practices amounting to torture are among the most serious human rights violations under international law, are crimes under Afghan law and are strictly prohibited under both Afghan and international law.

Detainees described experiencing torture in the form of suspension being hung by the wrists from chains or other devices attached to the wall, ceiling, iron bars or other fixtures for lengthy periods) and beatings, especially with rubber hoses, electric cables or wires or wooden sticks and most frequently on the soles of the feet.

Electric shock, twisting and wrenching of detainees’ genitals, stress positions including forced standing, removal of toenails and threatened sexual abuse were among other forms of torture that detainees reported. Routine blindfolding and hooding and denial of access to medical care in some facilities were also reported.

UNAMA documented one death in ANP and NDS custody from torture in Kandahar in April 2011.
UNAMA’s detention observation found compelling evidence that 125 detainees (46 percent) of the 273 detainees interviewed who had been in NDS detention experienced interrogation techniques at the hands of NDS officials that constituted torture, and that torture is practiced systematically in a number of NDS detention facilities throughout Afghanistan.

Nearly all detainees tortured by NDS officials reported the abuse took place during interrogations and was aimed at obtaining a confession or information. In almost every case, NDS officials stopped the use of torture once detainees confessed to the crime of which they were accused or provided the requested information.
UNAMA also found that children under the age of 18 years experienced torture by NDS officials.

More than one third of the 117 conflict-related detainees UNAMA interviewed who had been in ANP detention experienced treatment that amounted to torture or to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

UNAMA found compelling evidence that NDS officials at five facilities systematically tortured detainees for the purpose of obtaining confessions and information. These are the provincial NDS facilities in Herat, Kandahar, Khost and Laghman, and the national facility of the NDS Counter-Terrorism Department 124 (formerly Department 90) in Kabul.
UNAMA received multiple, credible allegations of torture at two other provincial NDS facilities in Kapisa and Takhar. UNAMA did not find indications of torture at two provincial NDS facilities, Paktya and Uruzgan, at the time of its visits to these facilities.

UNAMA received numerous allegations regarding the use of torture at 15 other locations covering 17 NDS facilities. Twenty-five percent of detainees interviewed in these 17 facilities alleged they had been tortured. At the time of writing of this report, UNAMA had not established the credibility of the allegations based on the number of interviews conducted and the need to corroborate allegations satisfactorily. UNAMA continues to investigate these allegations.
Detainees in ANP custody reported that abuse occurred in a broader range of circumstances and settings. Some of this abuse constituted torture while other methods amounted to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Reports of abuse by the ANP included police officers committing torture or ill-treatment at the time of arrest, at check posts, at district headquarters, and at provincial headquarters.

The UN notes that the Government of Afghanistan is obliged under Afghan law and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to investigate promptly all acts of torture and other ill-treatment, prosecute those responsible, provide redress to victims and prevent further acts of torture.

The Government’s obligation to respect the prohibition against torture is also non-derogable meaning that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, can be invoked as a justification of torture.

UNAMA’s detention observation included interviews with 89 detainees who reported the involvement of international military forces either alone or together with Afghan forces in their capture and transfer to NDS or ANP custody. UNAMA found compelling evidence that 19 of these 89 detainees were tortured in NDS custody and three in ANP custody.
The situation described in this report of transfer to a risk of torture speaks to the need for robust oversight and monitoring of all transfers of detainees to NDS and ANP custody by international military forces in Afghanistan, and suspension of transfers to facilities where credible reports of torture exist.

Canada and the United Kingdom ceased transfers of detainees to NDS facilities in Kandahar and Kabul at various times in recent years based on reports of torture and ill-treatment. These countries implemented post-transfer monitoring schemes allowing them to track the treatment of detainees their armed forces handed over to Afghan authorities. The United States Embassy recently finalized plans for a post-transfer detainee monitoring program and a proposal is with the Government of Afghanistan for its consideration.

UNAMA found that accountability of NDS and ANP officials for torture and abuse is weak, not transparent and rarely enforced. Limited independent, judicial or external oversight exists of NDS and ANP as institutions and of crimes or misconduct committed by NDS and ANP officials including torture and abuse.

Most cases of crimes or abusive or unprofessional conduct by NDS officials are addressed internally. Senior NDS officials advised UNAMA that NDS investigated only two claims of torture in recent years, neither of which led to charges being pursued against the accused.

The Embassy advised UNAMA that it regards the program as a positive way for the US to continue its work with the Government to ensure its detention system is safe, secure and humane.

In early July 2011, US and ISAF military forces stopped transferring detainees to NDS and ANP authorities in Dai Kundi, Kandahar, Uruzgan and Zabul based on reports of a consistent practice of torture and mistreatment of detainees in NDS and ANP detention facilities in those areas. In early September 2011, in response to the findings in this report, ISAF stated that it stopped transferring detainees to certain NDS and ANP installations as a precautionary measure.
In almost all criminal cases in Afghanistan, including national security prosecutions, the case against the defendant is based on a confession, which the court usually finds both persuasive and conclusive of the defendant’s guilt. In most cases confessions are the sole form of evidence or corroboration submitted to courts to support prosecutions. Confessions are rarely examined at trial and rarely challenged by the judge or defense counsel as having been coerced.

Under Afghan law, where a confession is obtained illegally or forced, for example, under torture, it should be inadmissible in court. However, even in cases where defense lawyers raise the issue of forced confession through torture, courts usually dismiss the application and allow the confession to be used as evidence. This evidentiary practice clearly violates the letter and spirit of the law and is inconsistent with many expert studies that show information gained by torture is manifestly unreliable and non-probative of an individual’s guilt or innocence.

Another weakness in procedural safeguards for detainees in NDS custody is the lack of access to counsel. Despite the right of all detainees under Afghan law to a defense lawyer at all stages of the process, only one of the 324 detainees UNAMA interviewed in ANP or NDS detention reported they had defense counsel. Almost all defense lawyers and legal aid providers informed UNAMA they had minimal access to NDS facilities as NDS officials deliberately prevented them from accessing detainees. NDS officials told UNAMA they deny detainees’ access to defense lawyers for fear they will influence detainees and hinder NDS investigations. Defense counsel reported they generally had better access to detainees held in ANP facilities but only after ANP investigating officials presented the case to the prosecutor.
Athough detainees have the right under Afghan law to family visits, only 28 percent of detainees interviewed were permitted family visits during their detention in NDS facilities.
UNAMA documented other due process concerns and violations by NDS and ANP officials. These include the routine failure to meet procedural time limits demarcating the phases of the pre-trial criminal investigation and chain of custody, lack of clarity in the roles of arresting authorities and prosecutors, and lack of judicial oversight of pre-trial detention until very late in the pre-trial process.
Since most conflict-related detainees do not have access to defense counsel or information about their rights, the absence of these procedural safeguards has a huge negative impact on detainees’ ability to challenge the legality of their detention, prepare a credible defense, or seek protection from torture or coercion.
Is this what we hoped to achieve in Afghanistan over the past ten years? I don’t think so.

I think that when military brass comes to the US to testify before Congress or meet with key lawmakers, they tend to talk about Afghanistan, the big picture. I have never heard a visiting officer say a single word about prisons, unless he/she was asked a question.

And when Congressional delegations travel to Afghanistan for first-hand briefings, I doubt that Afghan (or American, for that matter) prisons are anywhere close to their itinerary.

They may or may not be encouraged by what they see – what they’re shown – but it’s clear that prisons didn’t make the cut.

Do we have to have another Abu Ghraib-type scandal before we can cajole Mr. Karzai and his people to stop torturing detainees and follow his own country’s laws?

That’s exactly what’s gong to happen if Karzai continues to ignore this barbarian behavior. And that will bring a heap of trouble, not only for Karzai, but for our troops in Afghanistan and their leader, Barack Obama.

Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

2011-12-07T12:42:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

Ray McGovern is one of our country’s most credible contrarians. When the ex-CIA officer talks, I tend to listen. Some of what I heard last week made my hair stand on end. Here’s part of what Ray said:

In an article on Consortium News, entitled “Are Americans in Line for Gitmo?” Ray wrote:

“Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the “extraordinary measures” introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.

“And the relative lack of reaction so far calls to mind the oddly calm indifference with which most Germans watched the erosion of the rights that had been guaranteed by their own Constitution. As one German writer observed, ‘With sheepish submissiveness we watched it unfold, as if from a box at the theater’.

“The writer was Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimond Pretzel), a young German lawyer worried at what he saw in 1933 in Berlin, but helpless to stop it since, as he put it, the German people ‘collectively and limply collapsed, yielded and capitulated’.

“’The result of this millionfold nervous breakdown’, wrote Haffner at the time, ‘is the unified nation, ready for anything, that is today the nightmare of the rest of the world’. Not a happy analogy.”
McGovern writes, “The Senate voted to authorize – and generally to require – ‘the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons’ indefinitely. And such ‘covered persons’ are defined not just as someone implicated in the 9/11 attacks but anyone who ‘substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces’.”

He says the Senate “clearly wished for the military’s ‘law and order’ powers to extend beyond the territory of military bases on the theory that there may be “terrorsymps” (short for “terrorist sympathizers”) lurking everywhere.”

And McGovern asks: “Is the all-consuming ten-year-old struggle against terrorism rushing headlong to consume what’s left of our constitutional rights? Do I need to worry that the Army in which I was proud to serve during the 1960s may now kick down my front door and lead me off to indefinite detention — or worse?”

He adds, “A key element in the Senate bill, like the House version, is to expand the original Authorization of the Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) of September 2001 so it no longer links exclusively to 9/11. This creates the kind of ambiguity that allows Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, to claim that the bill’s stringent provisions do apply to U.S. citizens, as well as non-citizens.”

Well, and no doubt predictably to Ray McGovern, the Senate last week passed the National Defense Authorization Act. In doing so, it intentionally left unanswered what Ray McGovern calls “a momentous question about constitutional rights in the war against Al Qaeda: whether government officials have the power to arrest people inside the United States, strip them of their constitutional rights, and hold them in military custody indefinitely and without a trial.”

In passing the legislation – which still needs to be reconciled with a House bill – the Senators ignored the advice of virtually every senior figure in the military and the intelligence community. Carl Levin, powerful Democrat from Illinois, led the Committee.

And in passing this legislation the Senate, in effect, also thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court, which presumably settled this question in 2004 in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

Members such as Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of North Carolina, says American Qaeda suspects arrested in the United States should not be exempted from battlefield-style detention. He said on the Senate floor, “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ ”

That construct was built on the premise laid down by former President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The president decided, in effect, that if the president did it, it was legal. Largely on that basis, he made the most sweeping power grab in recent political memory.

And, during his Administration, there were two cases of people held as enemy combatants arrested inside the United States, one of them a citizen. Lower courts reached contradictory opinions about whether holding them in indefinite military custody was lawful, and they were transferred to the civilian system before the Supreme Court weighed in.

There were other senators, like Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States. “I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said. But they were shamefully outnumbered and the bill passed 93-7.

Against this background, the Public Record asked a group of distinguished law professors, “Do our government officials have the power to arrest people inside the United States and hold them in military custody indefinitely and without a trial?”
Here are parts of their answers:

Lt. Col (Res.) David Frakt, professor at Barry College of Law, Frakt defended Guantanamop detainee, Mohammad Jawad, an alleged combatant facing charges for events that took place when he was a minor. Jawad is one of two detainees, along with Omar Khadr, to be prosecuted at Guantanamo for acts they allegedly committed while juveniles.

“My opinion is this: There is no Constitutional authority to detain a U.S. citizen inside the United States and place him or her in military detention at all, regardless of the nature of the crime of which the individual is suspected, with the possible exception of a U.S. citizen who has actually joined a foreign military with which we are at war, as in the case of Ex Parte Quirin during World War II.

“As for non U.S. citizens. Terrorists, regardless of nationality are simply criminals. If they are arrested committing or attempting to commit a crime domestically, they should be treated as ordinary criminals. If they are attempting to engage in armed conflict with U.S. armed forces overseas, then they can be detained under the law of armed conflict.

“There is no meaningful distinction between a foreign terrorist like the persons who tried to blow up the World Trade Center or Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab and a domestic terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. They all want to kill innocent American civilians by blowing things up. While they all may well have useful information to provide law enforcement, the Constitution does not permit that information to be extracted involuntarily or through indefinite military detention. Much as politicians like Senator Graham would like to disregard the Constitution in pursuit of the impossibly elusive goal of perfect security, doing so not only diminishes us a country, but plays right into the hands of our enemies, who will only exploit our apparent hypocrisy for propaganda and recruiting purposes.”

Kathy Manley, an Albany (NY) Criminal defense attorney and vice-president of the Capital Region Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union ( NYCLU).

“Do they have the power to do it? Apparently so, unless we can stop them. But it is clearly illegal, under the Due Process Clause and Treason Clauses of the Constitution (as well as others), the Posse Commitatus Act and a variety of other laws. The problem is that neither Congress, the President or even the courts seem to have the slightest inclination to uphold the rule of law. That task is therefore falling to the people, who, other than a handful of civil libertarians, had been woefully deficient in doing anything about it.

We have to stop this before all our rights are gone.”

Francis Anthony Boyle, professor of international law at the Illinois State University College of Law:

“Of course not! Every person here in the United States—citizens and aliens alike—is entitled to all of the protections set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, inter alia. They are also entitled to all of the protections set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a contracting party and thus “the Supreme Law of the Land” under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

“What the American People are witnessing now with this new proposed legislation is the further development of an American Police State into a Military Dictatorship, a process that was started by the so-called USA Patriot Act in 2001. President Obama must veto it or else America will lose all pretense of having our Military subjected to the control of democratically elected civilian leaders as originally envisioned and required by the Constitution.

Peter Shane, professor of law at Ohio State and currently visiting professor of law at the Harvard law school:

“I can do no better than quote the dissent of Justice Scalia – Justice SCALIA – in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004): ‘The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.’

“Again, quoting Scalia: ‘Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime. Where the exigencies of war prevent that, the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2, allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily. Absent suspension, however, the Executive’s assertion of military exigency has not been thought sufficient to permit detention without charge’.”

If the Senate version emerges from the House-Senate reconciliation committee looking like the Senate version – and Obama signs it – we will be fully in the thrall of the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney-John Ashcroft-Donald Rumsfeld mafia.

The Senate will have done what the Senate seems to do best these days: Kick the can down the road.

.

.

Driving on Breast Milk

2011-12-05T18:29:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

During my first week in undergraduate school, a bunch of fraternities “rushed” me, but went dead silent after they asked me what church I went to: They learned I was Jewish. It was like turning off a light switch.

Still looking for some extra-curricular activities, I volunteered for the weekly newspaper, The Reporter. I should explain that my college, Stetson University, was a strict Southern Baptist institution endowed by the Stetson hat fortune.

I got to be editor of the Reporter and one of the problems I faced was the list of “can’t use” words and phrases I got from a super Scrooge-faced Dean of Students after I wrote a column containing one of the verboten words. The word was “dancing.” Nobody could print that word in the Reporter. The junior prom, for example, had to be described as a “frolic.”

This was the view not only of the Dean of Students, but of most of the Southern Baptist Convention back in the late 1940s. Millions of people frolicking all across the American South but never ever you know what.

The rationale for all this was simple: Dancing resulted in pregnancy, unwanted children, and an end to virgins. That was the entire non-explanation. No reference to what must have been at least a few steps between dancing and pregnancy. These steps apparently never happened when a couple was frolicking.

I hadn’t thought of all this in more than half a century. But a small story in the L.A. Times sent me careening back through time to my misspent youth.

It was a story about women in Saudi Arabia who wanted to drive their own cars, which is illegal in the desert Kingdom.

The story explained that if women were allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, the result would be catastrophic and lead to “no more virgins,” according to clerics from the Majlis al-Ifta al-Aala, the country’s highest religious council.

It warned that allowing women to drive would “provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce.” Within 10 years of the ban being lifted, it claimed, there would be “no more virgins” in the Islamic nation.

Women who disobeyed the rule faced public lashings, jail and ostracism.
And indeed, a few women were discovered driving. It was a kind of campaign they started to let the public in on the secret and get the rules changed. They could find no reason why Saudi Arabia should be the only country in the world to ban women drivers.
One of the campaigners got herself arrested, but a lot of international publicity for the “driving while woman” campaign got her freed. No lashes this time.

No change in the rules either.

But not to worry. A Saudi cleric and consultant to the Royal family came up with a solution. The L.A. Times reported that he issued a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, calling on women to give their breast milk to their male colleagues or men they come into regular contact with so as to avoid illicit mixing between the sexes. That would give men and women a maternal connection, thus circumventing the prohibition on unrelated men and women mingling.

But the Saudi women campaigners took the fatwa a step further. They say if they're not granted the right to drive, they will breastfeed their drivers to establish a symbolic maternal bond.

"Is this is all that is left to us to do: to give our breasts to the foreign drivers?" a Saudi woman named Fatima Shammary was quoted as saying by Gulf News.

The drivers would no doubt enjoy this new ritual and – who knows? – the gals might even let the guys take the wheel.

“This is Where I’m Going to be When I Die,”say Prisoners sentenced for Juvenile Crimes

2011-12-02T09:31:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher
Amnesty International is calling on the US justice system to stop sentencing young men and women to “life in prison without the possibility of release” for crimes they committed when were under 18 years old. More than 2,500 prisoners are currently serving such sentences in US prisons today.
In a new report, “'This is where I’m going to be when I die': Children facing life imprisonment without the possibility of release in the United States,” Amnesty charges that children as young as 11 at the time of the crime have faced life imprisonment without parole in the United States – the only country in the world to impose this sentence on children.
The report says, "Sentencing children to die in prison flouts a principle of international human rights law recognized and respected across the world, except by the USA. No other country is currently known to impose life imprisonment” without the possibility of parole for crimes, however serious, committed when they were children.
"In the United States, people under 18 cannot vote, buy alcohol or lottery tickets or consent to most forms of medical treatment, but they can be sentenced to die in prison for their actions. This needs to change,” says Natacha Mension, U. S. campaigner at Amnesty International (AI).
In the United States, life without parole can be imposed on juvenile offenders as a mandatory punishment – without consideration of mitigating factors such as history of abuse or trauma, degree of involvement in the crime, mental health status, or amenability to rehabilitation.
"We are not excusing crimes committed by children or minimizing their consequences, but the simple reality is that these sentences ignore the special potential for rehabilitation and change that young offenders have," said Mension.
In May 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court said life without parole is "an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile," as the young offender will serve, on average, more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an older offender. "A 16-year-old and a 75-year-old each sentenced to life without parole receive the same punishment in name only," the Court said.
Eighteen months after prohibiting this sentence for non-homicide crimes committed by under-18-year-olds, on November 8, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to consider this issue in relation to crimes involving murder. It will not issue a decision until the second quarter of 2012 at the earliest.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force more than two decades ago, expressly prohibits the imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for offenses, however serious, committed by people under 18 years old. All countries except the United States and Somalia have ratified the Convention.
"It is long past time for the United States to ratify the Convention without reservations or other limiting conditions and to fully implement its prohibition on the use of life imprisonment without release against children, including in relation to the cases of those already sentenced," said Mension.
But the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the USA did ratify in 1992, acknowledges the need for special treatment of children in the criminal justice system and emphasizes the importance of procedures that take account of their age and facilitate their rehabilitation
The report says this international prohibition “does not stem from any inclination to excuse crimes committed by children or to minimize the consequences of such crimes for the victims and their families. It stems, rather, from recognition that children, who are still developing, are not fully mature, and hence not fully responsible for their actions.”
These "offenders have a special potential for rehabilitation and change. It is not that young people should not be held accountable for their actions. It is that this accountability must be achieved in ways that reflect the offender’s young age and his or her is utterly incompatible with basic principles of juvenile justice."
Amnesty International’s 34-page report illustrates the issue through the stories of Christi Cheramie, Jacqueline Montanez and David Young.
On November 30, Christi Cheramie, who is serving life without parole in Louisiana, will submit an application for executive clemency with the state Board of Pardons. Christi was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release in 1994, when she was 16 years old for the killing of her 18-year-old fiancé’s great aunt.
She pleaded guilty just before her trial in adult court began, fearing she could be sentenced to death if the trial went ahead. Her guilty plea prevents her from directly appealing her conviction or sentence.
A psychiatrist who saw Christi prior to her trial said that she was a "depressed, dependent, and insecure" 16-year-old who "seems to have been fearful of crossing" her fiancé, who she maintains committed the crime. Christi’s childhood was marked by sexual abuse. At the age of 13, she was hospitalized in a psychiatric clinic after trying to commit suicide on at least two occasions.
After spending half of her life in prison, Christi believes she has changed in many ways. She has obtained a high school equivalency diploma, a degree in agricultural studies, and teaches a number of classes at the prison. A warden has stated that she is "worthy of a second chance."
A clemency campaign is also pending for a second person whose case is profiled in AI’s report. Jacqueline Montanez is the only woman in Illinois serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a crime committed as a child. A victim of child abuse, Jacqueline began abusing drugs and alcohol at the age of nine. Jacqueline’s abuser was her step-father, a gang leader, who also involved her in the drug trade as a very young child and groomed her to be his “little soldier.” After running away from home and joining a rival gang, she and two older women shot and killed two adult male members of her step-father’s gang.
Because she was 15 at the time of the crime and charged with first degree murder, she was automatically tried in adult criminal court. This denied the court system the opportunity of conducting a transfer hearing to determine whether her case ought to have been tried in juvenile court where factors such as her young age, home environment or amenability to rehabilitation would have been considered. Jacqueline was also automatically sentenced to life without parole due to her conviction; the sentencing court had no discretion to consider her history, her age, the circumstances of the offense or her potential for rehabilitation.
Now 35 years old, she expresses deep remorse for her actions and believes that she has grown into a very different person. She has obtained a high school equivalency diploma and has become a certified trainer of service dogs for disabled people. She grieves for her victims and the pain that their families have suffered.
In Illinois, 80 percent of children in prison for life without parole received mandatory sentences; about 82 percent are prisoners of color. That number is even higher in Cook County, where the Montanez case originated. These findings were published by the Illinois Coalition on the Fair Sentencing of Children in its 2008 report, “Categorically Less Culpable, Children Sentenced to Life Without Parole in Illinois.” http://www.law.northwestern.edu/cfjc/jlwop/documents/JLWOP_Report.pdf
Jacqueline’s petition for executive clemency will be submitted to the Illinois governor and the Prisoner Review Board in January 2012.
David Young is one of two teenagers arrested and charged for the murder of Charles Welch in 1997. He was automatically charged in adult criminal court as required by North Carolina law for any criminal offense committed by anyone age 16 or older. Young’s co-defendant, who shot the victim, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 19 to 23 years in prison. David was convicted of first-degree felony murder and was sentenced to life without parole.
Young grew up in a hostile community environment where his parents abused drugs and his stepfather physically abused him and his mother. Now 32 years old, Young obtained his high school equivalency diploma and is in solitary confinement after being stabbed by two prisoners.

Human Rights Group Says Army Rulers “Worse Than Mubarak”

2011-11-30T13:03:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

Nassary Hassan is an Egyptian citizen living in Germany. Last March, he was in Egypt and, during a visit to Hurghada – a resort town on the Red Sea -- he saw piles of garbage in the streets. He carried a banner reading, “The people want to clean Hurghada,” heading towards the City Council. He was asked to leave by one of the military police officers.

When he refused, he was beaten and verbally abused by him and his soldiers, until he lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital. Moreover, after he awakened, he requested a doctor to write a report about his injuries; but unfortunately, the doctor refused after he knew that he was assaulted by the military police.

Later on, Hassan was able to obtain the Military Governor’s phone number, whom he called and told him about what happened. However, the Military Governor told him to go back to the City Council and meet him at his office there, and when he did, he found a large number of police officers waiting for him, beating and verbally abusing him.

They took him to the military prosecution location that maltreated him and participated in fabricating charges of libel and slander of Armed Forces and a military officer. He was referred to the Military Court at Qena; which sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment and a 5 thousand LE fine on 24 March. However, in May, an appeal was filed against the ruling, and after consideration of the appeal, the court decided to alleviate the sentence to 6 months imprisonment, a fine of 5000 LE.

An appeal was submitted by the Arabic Network For Human Rights Information (ANHRI) defense team. It was successful in being able to alleviate the unjust sentence of imprisonment and the fine issued by the exceptional Military Tribunal against Hassan.

ANHRI claims the charges were fabricated by military police officers and the military governor of Hurghada, as a result of [Hasan’s] “civilized and peaceful way of expressing his views.”

The sentence by the military court in Qena was amended to be six months imprisonment instead of three years, and a fine of 5000 Egyptian pounds. Since last March, he spent more than 8 months in prison -- more than the allotted prison sentence.

Hasan was finally released Nov. 30.

ANHRI says this is one of thousands of cases where Egypt’s “temporary” rulers, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) have performed “even worse than Mubarak,” referring to the country’s dictator of thirty years who was overthrown February 11 in a people’s revolution that took only 18 days.

There are some 12,000 men and women in Egyptian military prisons, sent there after perfunctory military trials, some of which took less than five minutes. Their crimes were largely peacefully demonstrating, carrying placards listing their demands, and expressing themselves through blogs and social networks.

The “no more military trials” movement has become a powerful rallying cry against the army, which is said to be considering how it can free these prisoners without losing face completely.

Meantime, the Associated Press reports that Amnesty International says Egypt's military rulers have "completely failed" to fulfill their promises to protect human rights.

In a report released Tuesday, Amnesty accuses Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of adopting oppressive tactics used by the ousted regime of Hosni Mubarak, including targeting critics, banning critical media coverage and torturing protesters.

The military council took control after Mubarak's fall in February.
The report comes after three days of clashes between security forces and
protesters calling for a transition to civilian rule. More than 40 people have
been killed and thousands injured.

The group called on the military council to repeal the Mubarak-era "emergency laws," and protect human rights.

Egyptian human rights organizations claim to refer interior leadership and military police to criminal trials. Five Egyptian human rights organizations said that the brutal attacks, by security forces of the Ministry of Interior and the military police under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, over the past three days against the protestors in Cairo, Alexandria , Suez, Ismailia, Assiut and other few cities , are criminal offences. They demanded that perpetrators be referred for criminal prosecution.

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Hisham Mubarak Center for Law and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Nadim Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of violence and ANHRI , pledged to continue working on listing the names of civilian and military officials involved in the killing of demonstrators or bursting their eyes or breaking their bones , according to what was followed up or documented by them or media over the past few days.

Moreover, the organizations stated that the list of officials being prosecuted has so far skipped a number of high ranking military men, mostly from the Interior Ministry. The dreaded security police operate under the authority of the Interior Ministry, which has a long and bloody history of repression, torture and death in detention.

In recent days, it has become clear that the SCAF is not in control of the Interior Ministry’s police forces. Last week, with protestors closing in on the Ministry headquarters, and armed security forces standing on the front steps
with their rifles pointed at the protestors, SCAF actually had to ship in large concrete blast walls and lay them down the middle of the street to keep police and protestors apart..

The Human Rights groups condemned the “false statements made by military officials to the media. These claimed that the role of the military police has been limited to securing the Ministry of Interior building without exposure to the demonstrators. They also affirmed that their delegates had seen military police forces storming Tahrir Square at about five o’clock on November 20th brutally assaulting the demonstrators with batons.

“That was before setting protestors’ tents and belongings and a number of motorcycles, on fire. Moreover, the video clips broadcast from the sites of the newspapers and television stations Masry Al-Youm and Al Jazeera Mubasher MISR, show the attack of members of the military and civilian police on unarmed demonstrators in three sides to Tahrir Square, using tanks, tear gas and batons. It shows also the demonstrators being hit several times on the head with sticks and military forces feet after falling on the ground and stopped moving.”

In the two most recent days of demonstrations, there have been 17 attacks against journalists, including shooting, arrests and beatings while in detention by unidentified security agents. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemned these attacks, demanding the Egyptian authorities to end them immediately.

“Journalists should be allowed to do their job without being attacked. Moreover, there is an obligation on prosecutors to investigate allegations of abuses committed by the army and police against journalists” said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, program coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa of the committee to protect journalists.

Since Saturday, Tahrir Square in Cairo was occupied by protestors, demanding an end to military rule. The security Forces fired live and rubber bullets at them threw grenades, tear gas and attacked dozens of people according to news report. By Monday, several media reported the number of people killed was at least 33 people in addition to thousands of people injured as a result of the clashes.

The IPS news service, reporting from Cairo, quotes rights activist Sherif Azer, as saying, “The military council is dealing with the Egyptian people as if it is running a military camp. It took decades for enough anger to build up against Mubarak for a revolution; it has only taken nine months to have another."

GITMO Forever? Looks That Way!

2011-11-30T13:00:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

The Congress that was so fearful that trying accused terrorists in civilian courts would hasten Armageddon is now proposing to go one mindless step further. It may soon vote to make indefinite detention and unfair military trials permanent.

Earlier this week, the Senate voted to increase the military’s role in the detention of those suspected of being members of Al Qaeda or its allies – even if the arrests are made in the U.S.

The Senate defeated, 61-37, an effort to strip a major military bill -- National Defense Authorization Act -- of a clutch of controversial provisions – for example, one requiring the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. And a related provision that would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens.

“These provisions stretch the law of war beyond all recognition, and threaten to dramatically undermine national security by taking civilian tools of justice off the table when dealing with suspected terrorists,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “Intelligence and military leaders have overwhelmingly condemned these provisions — they will make us less safe, imposing a blunt one-size-fits-all approach in an area where the executive branch most requires flexibility to do its job.”

In an editorial, the Washington Post noted that Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) praised the provisions as “an improvement over the originals, which were decried by the Obama administration and even former George W. Bush Defense Department officials as too heavyhanded.”

But the Post said, “The new proposals are as problematic as the old and should be scrapped.”

It continued: “Since President Obama took office, some lawmakers, including Democrats, have tried to force him to adopt their military-centric approach to fighting terrorism. The original Senate plan permanently banned use of defense funds to build or modify U.S. facilities to hold Guantanamo Bay detainees; ordered
military detention for terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens, captured on
U.S. soil; and made it very difficult to transfer detainees deemed fit for
release to their homes or third countries. This approach, we have argued,
unacceptably limited the president’s flexibility to thwart attacks and react to
terrorism threats.”

Amnesty International (AI), in a statement, said, “We are facing one of the biggest crises at Guantanamo since “war on terror” detainees were first transferred there nearly 10 years ago: Congress may soon vote to make indefinite detention and unfair trials permanent. The 89 people there who are approved for release could remain forever. The 46 slated for detention without charge could be denied due process forever. The 36 referred for prosecution could only be tried in unfair kangaroo courts Military Commissions). Guantanamo would be permanent.”

The group urged its members to let their lawmakers know they ”oppose any legislation that would further entrench indefinite detention, denial of due process and military commissions—at Guantanamo, Bagram or any other US facilities—in US law and practice.”

The organization added, “Indefinite detention, denial of due process and the unfair military commissions are violations of human rights and contravene international law. There is a better way to ensure justice and security for all of us: either charge and fairly try Guantanamo detainees in US federal court, or release them immediately to countries where their human rights will be respected. The United States government should be protecting human rights, not violating them.”

When Barack Obama took office, he pledged on his very first day in the White House that he would close Guantanamo. Part of his plan was to try prisoners before our regular Article 111 civilian courts, where hundreds of accused terrorists had already been tried over a number of years.

But Congress had collective apoplexy. It hastily passed a law denying the president funds to move prisoners from Guantanamo to Federal Court in lower Manhattan. Lawmakers, including some of Congress’ leading so-called liberals, raved and ranted themselves into a frenzy. They went all-out stoking the flames of fear. A terror trial in lower Manhattan would provide terrorists with a readymade target to attack. Traffic would be tied up for days. Business would suffer. And if the defendant, heaven forefend, was acquitted, he would be “walking up and down Main Street and having coffee in the local diner.”

What? Not running for the School Board?

The first prospective trial was to have been KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammed), the alleged mastermind of 9/11. But that never happened. And now it’s never going to happen. It’s unlikely that KSM will ever appear before a Military Commission. So he will be at GITMO until he dies. As a consequence, 45 other people will have been denied due process to petition for their release. And 89 prisoners scheduled to be released, won’t be.

And the world will continue to wonder how and why this happened in the country the world used to look to as safe harbor for civil liberties and human rights.

The Part of Our Justice System No One Wants You to Know About

2011-11-29T11:45:00.002-05:00

By William Fisher

Remember Mike Nifong? Sure. He’s the sleazebag former District Attorney in the Duke University lacrosse team’s stripper rape scandal back in 2006. He made himself a short-lived hero by agreeing to prosecute members of the Duke Lacrosse team for raping an Africa-American stripper and dancer the team had hired for a party.

But Nifong, hell bent on winning reelection, forgot that he was an officer of the Court. He went public with a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue; he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions; he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation; he tried to manipulate potential witnesses; he refused to hear exculpatory evidence prior to indictment; that regulations on the conduct of an identification exercise were breached by failure to include "dummy" photographs; that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations; and that he made misleadingly incomplete presentations of various aspects of the evidence in the case (including DNA results).

He was dismissed from his job and later disbarred

Or how about federal prosecutor William Welch, and his deputy chief, Brenda Morris, who convicted Senator Ted Stevens -- and helped their own cause by withholding evidence from the defense that could have helped the defendant.

Or there’s Richard Convertino, the lead prosecutor in the so-called Detroit Sleeper Cell terrorism case. He was removed from the case on suspicion that he allegedly failed to turn over photographic evidence to the defense and obtained evidence from witnesses, leading the judge and other attorneys to believe the photographs did not exist.

These acts and alleged acts by prosecutors all qualify as prosecutorial misconduct. There are hundreds of such cases in our justice system every year. Very few of them ever get such high visibility. In fact, most abuses of this kind probably go unnoticed and unreported. In the three cases referenced above, only Nifong lost his law license. The others did not.

But, since 9/11, there has been another kind of misconduct growing. It usually takes place outside the courtroom and is a favorite of politicians of both parties, especially if they are running for reelection.

This is the phenomenon of politicians and others with private agendas calling press conferences to launch inflammatory – and usually false or grossly exaggerated – claims about the importance of a given case to the national security of the United States.

Examples are legion. When Jose Padilla was arrested for what the press told us was an attempt to explode a “dirty bomb” (a nuclear device) in the middle of New York City, then Attorney General John Ashcroft was in Moscow.

He immediately reorganized his day and hurriedly called a press conference where he trumpeted Padilla’s apprehension in what TIME called a “fear-inducing video hookup.”

Ashcroft was surely on a roll that day. But is was not long before it began to be clear that, to quote TIME again, “[Padilla] is not the deadly, skilled operative Attorney General John Ashcroft seemed to be describing when he announced Padilla's arrest… In fact, history may judge the Administration's legal treatment of Padilla—locking him up indefinitely with no plan to try him—as more alarming than Padilla himself.”

When Padilla was finally arraigned in Federal Court, the “dirty bomb” charge was nowhere to be found.

Then there was the prosecution of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an oncologist from Manlius, NY, a community near Syracuse. Dhafir was arrested in February 2003 in a raid that drew nationwide media coverage. Long before his trial began, he was labeled “a terrorist” by then Attorney General Ashcroft and then New York Gov. George Pataki.

On the day of the arrest Ashcroft announced that “funders of terrorism” had been arrested. And just before Dhafir’s trial began in October 2004, Pataki described the case as a “money laundering case to help terrorist organizations … conduct horrible acts,” an announcement perfectly timed to reach potential jurors.

But no reference to terrorism or to Dhafir’s Muslim faith was permitted in court, and no terrorism charges were ever brought against him. His supporters claim he was “selectively prosecuted.”

Dhafir was convicted in February 2005 of 59 criminal counts, including money laundering, conspiracy to violate US sanctions against Iraq, misusing $2 million that donors contributed to his unlicensed charity, Help the Needy, spending $544,000 for his own purposes, defrauding Medicare out of $316,000, and evading $400,000 in federal income tax payments by writing off the illegal charity donations. No terrorism here.

Politicians outside the courtroom intentionally hyping the extreme dangers presented by defendants have become standard practice. This has occurred numerous times when it was clear that the alleged “terrorists” were pathetic down-and-outers who many believe had been entrapped by the FBI.

What politicians say at their press conferences is intended to achieve one objective only: to plant doubt in the minds of prospective jurors.

Independent activist Katherine Hughes adds that, “In Dr. Dhafir’s case, they also transformed his community image from a compassionate humanitarian into a crook and supporter of terrorists.”

And just a few days ago, we recall New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg convening a hastily organized press conference to announce the arrest of one Jose Pimentel.

Flanked by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Bloomberg said:

“Yesterday afternoon, New York City police officers arrested a 27-year-old Al Qaeda sympathizer who was plotting to bomb police patrol cars and also postal facilities, as well as target members of our Armed Forces returning from abroad. Jose Pimentel of Washington Heights, which is in the northern end of Manhattan, faces terrorism-related charges….”

Bloomberg also got an opportunity to praise the work of New York’s Finest.
“The NYPD Intelligence Division did outstanding work in tracking this individual and containing the threat he posed to the city. The police constructed a duplicate of an explosive device that the suspect built, and then detonated it in a way that he intended to use his weapon. We wanted to show you a video about the resulting damage,” he said.

He went on: “The suspect was a so-called lone wolf, motivated by his own resentment of the presence of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as inspired by Al Qaeda propaganda. He was not part of a larger conspiracy emanating from abroad. He represents exactly the kind of threat FBI Director Robert Mueller and his experts have warned about, as American military and intelligence agencies have eroded Al Qaeda's ability to launch large-scale attacks.

“This case is also reminiscent of another lone wolf plot in 2004 in which two New Yorkers angry over the treatment of prisoners in Iraq plotted to bomb the Herald Square subway station. Like the current case, the Herald Square plot was uncovered by the NYPD Intelligence Division.

“And as with still another case earlier this year in which a lone wolf plotted to attack a large synagogue, the NYPD teamed-up with the Manhattan District Attorney's office to prosecute Pimentel under State terrorism-related statutes.

“Whether launched by lone wolves, Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda affiliates, there have been at least 13 previous terrorist plots since 9/11 targeting New York City. This would be the fourteenth.

“Because of such repeated threats, the NYPD remains focused on preventing another terrorist attack. We assign a thousand officers to counter-terrorism duties every single day. This is just another case where our precautions paid off."

Some journalists covering the story simply transcribed Bloomberg’s words. Others were suspicious. Did Bloomberg rush this arrest and press conference to divert attention away from the conflicts with the Occupy movement, whose members, as well as some journalists, had just been driven out of Liberty Square, and their tends and other equipment destroyed by police? And where was the FBI? The Bureau participates in almost all such events with the mayor and with less city lights. Soon we learned that the FBI was saying it would not have made this arrest.

That’s a big statement for that agency, which has been suspected by many of using paid informants to entrap gullible individuals, and get them involved in terror plots. However, many of these so-called plots look like children’s games. In others, the alleged perpetrators look so disheveled, bedraggled, disoriented, that they seem like the last people who would be capable of carrying out a terror plot.

In addition to trying to influence juries with incendiary and fear-provoking pronouncements, politicians and the law enforcement agencies they support employ a second technique – in some ways, worse than the false accusations.

This is the designation known as the “person of interest.” This insidious label has the capacity to put life on hold, to turn lives upside down, to bankrupt citizens unable to pay lawyers’ fees to try to prove their innocence.

Remember Richard Jewell? To refresh your memory, Jewell, 33, was working as a security guard at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. The Atlanta Police have received a message saying, "There is a bomb in Centennial Park. You have 30 minutes." Jewell was working in Centennial Park.

At 1:20 a.m., a pipe bomb exploded near a huge sound-and-light tower erected by AT&T, which had become a major attraction for visitors to Centennial Olympic Park. The blast killed two people and injured 111 others.

Richard Jewell was the hero of the incident. He was responsible for finding the backpack that had contained the bomb, and for getting people out of the immediate area, thus probably limiting further death and injury.

But four days after the bombing, news organizations reported that Jewell had become the main focus of their investigation as a potential suspect in the bombing. At the time, Jewell was unknown to authorities, and a lone wolf profile made sense to FBI investigators after being contacted by his former employer at Piedmont College.
Though he was never arrested or charged with any crime, Jewell was named as a "person of interest.” His home, where he lived with his mother, was searched and his background exhaustively investigated, all amid a media storm that had cameras following him to the grocery store. Eventually, Jewell was exonerated, and once again hailed as a hero. The media circus pursued Jewell everywhere for weeks, until Eric Rudolph pled guilty to carrying out the bombing attack at the Centennial Olympic Park, as well as three other attacks across the South.

After his exoneration, Jewell filed a series of lawsuits against the media outlets which he claimed had libeled him, primarily NBC News and The Atlanta Constitution, and insisted on a formal apology from them. Jewell's attorneys contend Piedmont College President Raymond Cleere called the FBI and spoke to the Atlanta newspapers, providing them with false information on Jewell and his employment there as a security guard. Jewell's lawsuit accused Cleere of describing Jewell as a "badge-wearing zealot" who "would write epic police reports for minor infractions." Eventually he received an apology from the FBI.

Toward the end of the incident, broadcast host Bill Press discussed Jewell on television. Turning to Larry Sabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia, a guest on the program, he commented, "He (Jewell) did a pretty good job of destroying his own reputation, first, didn't he, Larry?"

To which Sabato replied, "You know, Bill, that's a great example of what happens when some poor soul, and I'm going to assume he's innocent until it's proven otherwise, some poor soul wanders into the media spotlight, because that's what happens. I remember the fellow who deflected the gun from President Ford out in California in 1975 and he saved the president's life and within 48 hours, a newspaper had revealed to his family, who didn't know, that he was gay."

Unlike Jewell, Steven Hatfill was never seen as a hero. But, just as Jewell’s life had been turned upside down by law enforcement, Hatfill’s also became a living hell.
Steven Jay Hatfill, now 60, is an American physician, virologist and bio-weapons expert who underwent what was considered by many to be a trial by media with great toll on his personal and professional life. After eight months of pressure from the media and amateur detectives, the US Department of Justice identified the former government scientist as a "person of interest" in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. He was put under 24/7 surveillance.

FBI searches of his apartment in July and August 2002 were well-attended by journalists, many of whom had been pointing at Dr. Hatfill for months.

Dr. Hatfill later sued the government for ruining his reputation, a case that the government settled for US$5.8 million. He also filed lawsuits against several periodicals that had pointed to him as a figure warranting further investigation.

The situation became even more tragic when FBI and DOJ officials later blamed the anthrax deaths on another government scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, whom they concluded had acted alone. Ivins committed suicide. The case remains unsolved.

The abuses described here are miscarriages of justice, whether they occur in or outside a court. Politicians and law enforcement agencies depend on a supine press corps to circulate their stories all over the world in minutes. With the help of a media more skilled in stenography than in reporting, unsubstantiated rumors are printed and broadcast as facts. If further investigation is done by the media (which is rare) corrections often appear, if at all, long after the event. Yet they can rob you of your reputation before you have a chance to respond.

To be the target of a media blitz is tantamount to being found guilty of something. When a politician or an overly zealous prosecutor tags you as a dangerous terrorist before you ever go to court, you might as well not go to court. Such is the fear of terror that has pervaded our country since 9/11 that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has even successfully dictated where and how to try those accused of terrorism.

Is there anything ordinary citizens can do about these kinds of events? Unfortunately, not much. We should be urging our political leaders to choose their words more carefully and to show more respect for the rule of law. We should reign in over-zealous prosecutors who see their mission in life as collecting scalps. And we should be campaigning in Congress for substantial revisions in the “material support” law.

Politicians, judges, prosecutors and lawmakers need to demonstrate that they know the difference between governance and show business!

Ordinary citizens can’t censor what politicians say. And Judges could do a far better job of censoring what lawyers say (or fail to say) in court.

Perhaps the simplest target for irate citizens is the “person of interest” designation. The phrase has no legal meaning; it is administrative verbiage that law enforcement uses to show the public it’s working hard to find to find the guilty.

That phrase should be expunged from the Justice Department’s lexicon.

And that’s well within the President’s prerogatives.

.

The Liberties We’ve Lost in the ‘War on Terror” are Temporary, Right?

2011-11-27T15:31:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

As the country enters its second post-9/11 decade, I asked renowned human rights crusader Chip Pitts about what civil liberties/human rights we’ve collectively lost in the so-called “war on terror” as what was previously legal has now become criminal.

Here’s what he said:

“Virtually all of our most fundamental rights and liberties have been affected for the worse, with little or no awareness among the populace at large. The ignorance is no accident, but the product of conscious mendacity, manipulation and complicity among the leading political parties, all branches of government, defense contractors and the entrenched military-industrial-surveillance complex, and mainstream media – all of which (with occasional notable exceptions) are tragically pulled by various perverse incentives in the direction of trying to out-do each other in pandering to the basest fears and instincts of the American Body Politic”.

He added: “A huge number of legal violations have occurred, ranging from the momentous (illegal war) to the mundane (failure to fully notify the appropriate committees of Congress about the illegal warrantless surveillance as required under the National Security Act), but I’ll limit myself to highlighting the most significant to the rights of the American public.”

How has the ‘War on Terror’ impacted the Rule of Law?

“The first category of infringements I would place under the general rubric of undermining the Rule of Law. Although all the regressions could be put in this category, some strike more than others at the very concept itself. If the Rule of Law means anything, it means that everyone is subject to the same rules of general application and that those rules are fairly applied: a ‘government of laws, and not of men’ as founding father and American President John Adams famously put it.”

“Yet we now have a much more arbitrary system of justice, in which people can be deemed second-class citizens and have their assets seized, have their travel and other rights burdened, and be stigmatized, imprisoned, or even killed merely by essentially unreviewable executive fiat.”

“That’s the net effect of new approaches including the following, all of which impose serious burdens without the traditional checks and balances and independent reviews previously enshrined in law:

· Asset Seizure section 106 of the Patriot Act, which has led, for example, to the closure on legally dubious grounds of nearly all of the major Muslim charities in the United States, among other seizures occurring merely upon executive branch ‘designation’,

· the notoriously error-ridden ‘watch lists’ and ‘no fly’ lists which have thrown certain innocent individuals into a Kafkaesque Hell from which there’s no easy escape, setting a precedent for further pernicious ‘government by watch-list’ that extra-legally allocates benefits and burdens,

· the TSA bodyscanners, which don’t work to detect the plastic explosives which were their supposed reason for being, as noted by sources as diverse as the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, and CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta – but have been shown to pose risks to privacy and health, disproportionately burdening vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, religious objectors, and the immune-compromised who risk serious harm from the cumulative effects of long-term radiation exposure,

· the reality of profiling on racial, religious, ethnic, and national origin grounds, despite official rhetoric and policies against it, facilitated by reliance on a (likely unconstitutional) broad exception relating to national security and border-related investigations,

· the risk that anyone could be subject to the military commissions regime, a novel secondary justice system in which the executive branch is judge, jury, and executioner and in which a person may find themselves arbitrarily placed without principled distinction simply because they’ve been labeled a ‘terrorist’ or ‘enemy combatant’ (thus US citizen Jose Padilla was shifted at the last minute from the military to the civilian regime after years of being imprisoned, tortured, and denied counsel as an “enemy combatant,” and shoe bomber Richard Reid was tried in civilian court as were 400 other terrorists, but others find themselves subjected to the lower evidentiary and justice standards of the military regime, without reasoned explanation),

· Assassination (defenders call it legal ‘targeted killing’) even of US citizens off the battlefield, without due process of law, without lawyers or the right to confront the evidence or witnesses against them, without the right to trial by jury or any of the other protections guaranteed by the US Constitution.”

Haven’t we also experienced specific infringements of fundamental rights crucial to our national identity and fundamental values?

“We certainly have. Even a cursory review of the Constitutional protections that have been compromised illustrates the point. For example:

· The First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, religion, and petitioning government for redress of grievances, all newly under pressure from widespread warrantless surveillance, secret data mining of private data, surreptitious infiltration of peaceful protest and solidarity groups, President Obama’s increased prosecution of supposedly protected whistleblowers and leakers, and changes in the law allowing criminalization and chilling of such speech and association promoting peace and human rights under the Patriot Act’s ‘material support’ provision (which criminalized ‘expert advice and assistance’ and was upheld in the US Supreme Court’s closely divided, erroneous decision Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project),

· The Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant and probable cause to believe a crime or terrorism was involved, which also have been eroded by the FISA Amendments Act (allowing the Bush-era illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans’ phone calls, emails, and web-surfing habits), Patriot Act provisions including section 505 regarding the notorious and repeatedly abused National Security Letters (allowing the FBI to search a wide variety of library and business records without probable cause, any judicial review, or notifying the target), section 215 (the library and business records provision requiring the secret FISA court to approve searches on a mere ‘relevance’ standard and probably also being interpreted to allow a secret data mining program some Senators say would ‘stun’ and ‘anger’ the US public if revealed), section 213 (allowing ‘sneak and peek’ secret black bag job searches of homes), and section 218 (basically importing expansive foreign intelligence surveillance powers into domestic criminal law).

· The Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law has been infringed not only by the extreme measure of assassination noted above, but also by increasingly routine arbitrary changes of the rules—contrary to President Obama’s promises -- so as to block accountability for other violations of fundamental rights, as with the use of the state secrets privilege, standing, and other procedural doctrines to completely immunize those who labeled citizens like Jose Padilla ‘enemy combatants’, or those who tortured, participated in extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and ‘disappearing’ people) to places of torture, and planned and conducted warrantless surveillance,

· The Eighth Amendment rights to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (also protected by an international treaty, the Convention Against Torture, signed by Pres. Ronald Reagan, and by federal statute), which has been rhetorically embraced by both the Bush and Obama administrations but ignored in practice (especially by the former, but also allegedly to a lesser extent even by the latter, in cases such as those of Bradley Manning, Gulet Muhammed, and in Afghanistan and Iraq).”

Have these major infringements spilled over into the routine law enforcement and justice systems of the United States?

“Some of us had naïve expectations that these developments wouldn’t further affect ordinary citizens. Yet we now all know that legions of ordinary citizens already have been harmed and had their privacy and liberties infringed by National Security Letters and other Patriot Act provisions, as decades of gradual progress in expanding rights have been undermined and generations who have fought for hard-won liberties have seen both their liberty and their security dramatically reduced this past decade. This category includes:

· The increasing militarization of domestic policing and intelligence gathering, as seen in such developments as the Pentagon’s new Northern Command, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) involvement in domestic intelligence and counterterror efforts, Pentagon involvement in infiltration of domestic peace and anti-war groups, increasing deployment of weaponized drones within US borders as well as at the borders, and the surveillance, biometric, and other equipment and weapons defense contractors have imported from Iraq and Afghanistan into American streets, all as described (among others) by Dana Priest and Bill Arkin in their Top Secret America Washington Post series and book, and all in great tension with our Constitutional regime and historic bias against domestic deployment of military forces as reflected in Posse Comitatus and other laws,

· Although sold as temporary, emergency counterterror measures, these laws and approaches such as the Patriot Act have only become more permanent and used overwhelmingly for routine, domestic law enforcement (such as drug cases and minor offenses) – as repeatedly confirmed in the government’s own reports, such as the recent one described by the ACLU pertaining to ‘sneak and peek’ home search warrants -- again contrary to the basic premises and fundamental laws of our democratic republic and its origins in a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights arranged precisely against such arbitrary and unconstrained power.

· The way the laws have, as described above, been used to immunize high officials and the powerful from accountability of any type (no torture victim has received his or her day in US court!) at the very time laws for lesser violations have resulted in the United States carrying the dubious honor of having imprisoned more of its population, in both absolute and percentage terms, than any other nation in the world. This discrepancy remains a substantial driver for the Occupy movement and can be expected to continue to drive social instability, protest, and conflict unless and until the gaps in transparency and accountability are remedied and again realigned with the original, sensible Constitutional vision and allocation of rights and powers.”
_____________________________________________________________
Chip Pitts teaches human rights and corporate social responsibility law at Stanford Law School and Oxford University, and serves as a volunteer activist for a number of organizations and initiatives seeking to advance human rights, civil liberties, social justice, and economic development.

US Congress: Very Busy Doing Nothing at All

2011-11-27T15:29:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

While the US Congress is busy doing nothing, the nothing they’re not doing contains stuff that’s really important.

Yes, even more important than naming middle schools and post offices (which they seem to have mastered).

For example, if there’s anyone left in Washington who doesn’t believe that the Republican Party’s opposition to everything is exactly that – even being against non-partisan measures that not long ago drew significant Republican enthusiasm – well just consider the brick wall Senator Jim Webb is crashing into just now.

Last year, Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, introduced legislation to establish a bipartisan National Criminal Justice Commission, with support from more than 100 organizations, including the National Sheriffs’ Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Innocence Project.

Webb’s National Criminal Justice Commission Act would create a blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission of experts charged with undertaking an 18-month top-to-bottom review of the nation’s criminal unfair, cruel and dysfunctional justice system and offer concrete recommendations for reform.

While blue-ribbon commissions are often seen in Washington as ways to sweep serious issues under the rug, we believe this one might have been different simply because of the guy leading the charge.

Jim Webb is no flaming liberal. He is a thoughtful Democrat, refreshingly undoctrinaire on a host of issues. He is as tenacious as a pitbull. He has a good eye for serous problems crying out for serious solutions.

Well, our justice/prison system has no trouble qualifying for that definition. In what much of the civilized world regards as a catastrophic failure of imagination, we have nurtured a love affair with locking people up. At this moment, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,292,133 adults are incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails; thousands of alleged illegal immigrants being held in detention for deportation; and more thousands of young offenders being held in a range of juvenile facilities. The World Prison Brief puts the The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world.

During the past decade, our prison population has grown exponentially. Private for-profit prisons have experienced a windfall, since their revenue comes from the numbers of prison beds they fill. Judges using Federal minimum guidelines impose wildly different sentences for similar crimes.

We have more prisoners than China, North Korea, and Iran, and our rates of recidivism are the highest in the world.

In its first time out of the box, Senate Republicans blocked the passage of Webb’s initiative. In media coverage following the vote, writers from across the political spectrum condemned the Republican filibuster. Why? Just because. Were there substantive changes the Senate GOP wanted to make? If there were we never got to hear about them. Instead, there was the usual vote to bring the bill to the floor. It needed 60 votes to pass. It didn’t even come close.

Conservative columnist Reihan Salam called the vote against the creation of a Criminal Justice Commission an "absolute scandal” in the National Review.

The Virginian Pilot said in an editorial that the vote represented “Senate negligence” and the Roanoke Times said the vote “snuffs out the last fumes of hope that the legislative body can accomplish anything remotely useful.”

Sen. Webb says he is not deterred. He said: “We will keep fighting for a comprehensive review of the justice system, with the help of the thousands of sheriffs, police, mayors and justice advocates who have joined us in pressing for reform.”

Well. Good luck with that Senator. It still takes 60 votes to pass and, for the foreseeable future, all those law-and-order Republicans aren’t likely to do anything to disrupt the Wild West ambience they have come to love. They’ll be the first to tell you: “Inmates Don’t Vote.”

And while we are on the subject of Congress keeping busy doing nothing, The Washington Post reminds us that this week, the Senate is likely to take up a defense reauthorization bill that effectively – and unnecessarily – ties the hands of the President to deal with terrorism cases.

One is a requirement that terrorism suspects who are not U.S. nationals be held in military custody. We agree with the Post, which says, “Military detention should be an option available to the president, but requiring it in all cases prevents him from taking full advantage of some of the country’s most powerful counterterrorism tools.”

The Post reasons, “Law enforcement officials and national security specialists, for example, could be forced to hand over a suspect even if they were making headway in gathering intelligence. This could also thwart the FBI’s ability to surveil a suspected terror ring and gather information for fear that identifying suspects could force it to prematurely capture and hand over these individuals to the military.”

Makes sense to us!

Congress has also constructed yet another hog-tie for the President. Republicans have proposed that the executive branch be forbidden from using Defense Department funds to construct a U.S. facility or adapt an existing one to hold detainees now at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“This provision,” says the Post, “is little more than fear-mongering and ignores the country’s long track record of imprisoning convicted terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, without incident. Lawmakers should also eliminate onerous restrictions on the president’s ability to transfer detainees to their home or third countries.”

We could not agree more.

Any Senate action would have to be reconciled with the House version of the bill, which Mr. Obama has rightly threatened to veto. A filibuster in the Senate, or any other reason to fail to reach agreement, would dump the whole issue in the lap of the Courts, thus ignoring the traditional role of the other two branches in matters of this kind.

The Post concludes: “The country needs a sensible antiterrorism policy to combat an unconventional and unrelenting enemy. The president and lawmakers should be the architects of such a plan.”

Amen, but don’t hold your breath.

Bahrain: All the King’s Men

2011-11-27T15:26:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

With conflict wracking larger and more influential countries like Egypt and Syria, last week’s developments in Bahrain might well get pushed to the bottom of the world’s news budget or ignored altogether.

But that would be shameful and shortsighted.

Because what happened in the tiny Gulf kingdom last week is truly remarkable. A reigning monarch commissioned a report that was devastating in its condemnation of his regime – and the King accepted it and vowed to implement its recommendations.

Skeptics are saying talk is cheap – follow the feet. And where the Middle East is concerned, a healthy dollop of skepticism is always welcome.

Especially because the report to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa left no room for doubt as to who was responsible for widespread death and destruction: All the King’s Men. All the King’s Men are Sunni Muslims. The vast majority of Bahrain’s people are Shia Muslims. The Royal Commission found this situation to be central to the conflict. (The King disagreed.)

The commission, headed by Egyptian judge Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni, also found "systemic use" of “physical and psychological mistreatment, which in many cases amounted to torture, with respect to a large number of detainees" held in detention by the authorities.

The Guardian newspaper reports that the commission also demolished a key government claim, stating baldly that it found no "discernible link" between specific incidents in Bahrain and Iran — a charge heard repeatedly.

Bassiouni's team also found that some mosques and prayer houses that were destroyed by the government had no building permits. However, the report says, "The government should have realized that … the timing [and] the manner in which demolitions were conducted and the fact that these were primarily Shia … would be perceived as a collective punishment and … inflame the tension between the government and the Shia population".

The report also confirmed that hundreds of students were dismissed from university after being photographed demonstrating. And more than 1,600 people say they were dismissed or suspended from their jobs. It added that Shia employees were often treated differently from non-Shia, "creating a reasonable presumption that many were subjected to discrimination."

Maybe, in accepting the report and promising reforms, the Royal Family is simply trying to mollify its subjects. But window dressing is not going to impress the opposition. Just a whiff of insincerity in the dialogue the King says he wants and the people will be out in the street once more.

Correcting the abuses committed by the security forces will not be easy, but it is not impossible. The King needs to replace the people in charge of the security services. He must resist appointing someone who is a member of the Royal Family. The entire culture of the security forces must be changed. It must be fair. It must respect the rule of law. It must abandon torture. And it must be inclusive of Bahrain’s Shia majority. And King Hamad and his people need to recognize his people’s inherent right to peacefully protest. That’s a very tall order, but it is doable over time.

Much less certain is whether the pervasive discrimination felt by the Shia population can be reversed. The Shia majority complains of being zeroed out of competition for top jobs in both the public and private sectors and discriminated against in housing, finance and the country’s social life. They say this discrimination has existed for many years and has become firmly embedded in Bahraini culture, thus even more difficult to correct.

But unless the majority begins to see concrete signs that the King is at least trying to effect this transformation, we can expect more divisiveness and conflict, death and destruction.

King Hamad has a tough job ahead. But he has also an enormous opportunity. Pray that he takes it.

WITHER OCCUPY?

2011-11-27T15:25:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Whenever I can, I try to watch David Brooks and Mark Shields in their weekly conversations with Newshour host Jim Lehrer. The reason is that this is one of the few, very few, opportunities we get these days to hear the views of a conservative who is not frothing at the mouth and threatening to abolish three (or was it two?) Cabinet departments.

But every once in a while something David says brings me up short and last Friday was one of those whiles. He and Mark were talking about the Occupy movement. David was wondering what the end game was. He was saying there is no leadership and with no leadership Occupy’s objectives could never be translated into permanent political change. That kind of change happens only when there are people lobbying hard for it in Washington, and the Occupy folks have no lobbyists – in fact the very idea is anathema to them.

Shields took a different view. He said the Occupy movement had changed the national conversation about income distribution. That was a subject, said Shields, that hasn’t been seriously discussed among ordinary citizens forever.

Brooks looked surprised. He said he couldn’t remember any other subject that has been discussed more, by more people, with more solutions.

That got a big rise out of Shields. He had a look on his face that said, “This is preposterous.” It was clear they were bringing news from their respective parallel universes!

And, truth to tell, maybe there’s some “right” in both positions. Maybe, in David’s world of think tanks and policy wonks, income redistribution is on the agendas of most reputable economists. I would expect these guys to be reading The New York Times.

But, out in the hinterlands, where a good deal of Shields’s constituency is, this is not exactly the sexiest subject on the agenda. In fact, it is not unfair to say that it is a subject that causes people’s eyes to glaze over in rapid order.

This disconnect between the nation’s capitol and the nation’s heartland extends far beyond who’s getting how much of the national wealth pie. For that subject is subsumed by larger issues such as the “appropriate” roles and size of government.

The “Tea Party” embraced that question, but by and large their answers were un-constructive, motivated by pandering and based on ideology rather than fact. They looked wild-eyed and ill-informed.

When the Occupy Movement ends up in the corridors of power in our nation’s capitol – and, one way or another, it will -- it can’t afford to look ill-informed.

It must come with ideas the average voter can understand. These ideas would begin to right the wrongs of income concentration, without destroying our wealthy citizens or fomenting revolution.

The ideas are out there. Eventually, what Occupy will need is an audience of legislative champions who understand our Tax Code. And the importance of incrementalism.

US Congress: Very Busy Doing Nothing at All

2011-11-27T15:23:00.000-05:00

Arab Spring, Two Point 0

2011-11-19T14:40:00.000-05:00

Egypt: Demonstrators Push to
Reverse Army’s Power Grab.

By William Fisher

As the date approaches for Egypt’s first “free” elections in thirty years, tens of thousands of protesters gathered in the iconic Tahrir Square Friday to demand that the Army back off its proposal to give itself perpetual veto power over a new constitution and continued freedom from public scrutiny.

Egyptians will go to the polls on November 28 for the first of three rounds of Parliamentary elections. These will be followed early next year by the nation’s first “free” presidential election. In the past, until 2005, under the Mubarak regime, both parliamentary and presidential elections were tightly restricted to candidates from only one political party – Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP), and universally criticized for widespread fraud and voter intimidation.

In 2005, then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cancelled a trip to Egypt scheduled for the following week because of Egypt’s arrest and imprisonment of a leading candidate, Ayman Nour of the “Tomorrow” party. He was released in time to run for president in the election of 2005, where he gained slightly more than seven per cent of the vote. That was the first year that Egypt ever ran a multi-party election, after considerable pressure from the US and other countries. Nour was then not released from prison until 2009.

Since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in February, Egypt has been ruled by the Army, through the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), a group of generals, plus a civilian government they appointed. The wide array of groups and parties that sparked the February revolution have been highly critical of the SCAF and its civilian puppets for a host of what they consider retrograde and anti-democratic actions.

These include dragging their feet on reforms such as lifting the so-called “emergency laws” that give the authorities license to arrest without cause, try civilians before military courts and convict and sentence defendants without lawyers or sufficient time to prepare adequate defenses. Some 12,000 people have been charged under military rules since the revolution began. The army’s military police have been criticized by most political actors for continuing the prisoner torture policies of the Mubarak regime.

Criticism of the armed forces is a crime under Egyptian law. It is being enforced by the SCAF and numerous journalists and bloggers have been tried before military courts and jailed for substantial prison terms under this Mubarak-era law.

Following the Parliamentary elections, a committee of Parliament will draft a new Constitution. Through its civilian government, the Army has recently proposed that a number of “supra-Constitutional” measures be adopted. SCAF wants the military's budget shielded from scrutiny by Parliament and the public and SCAF to have veto-power over all military-related matters in the Constitution.

According to Agence France Presse (AFP), the Muslim Brotherhood and numerous other groups of various political persuasions spearheaded Friday's Tahrir Square protests, united by the conviction that the military must transfer power to a civilian government as soon as possible.

The contested “extra Constitutional” document, presented by Deputy Prime Minister Ali Silmi, drew fire from virtually every quarter. He responded: "The army is the only guardian of Egypt at this difficult time. Even if we disagree with some of their actions, it can be resolved through discussions and not through pressuring and threatening the military. Egypt, in some cases, is no more than masses and crowds."

The Muslim Brotherhood, through its Freedom and Justice Party, may emerge as the largest bloc in the election, the first since the fall of Mubarak. In the 2005 election, the Brotherhood, though officially banned by the government as a political party, won about 20 per cent of the votes for parliament. Their candidates ran as “independents.”

The SCAF, which took charge after Mubarak's ouster and suspended the
Constitution and parliament, says it will hand over power once a new president is elected. Parliamentary elections will start on November 28 and are expected to end in March.

AFP reports that “chants were heard in Cairo and Alexandria comparing Chief Marshal Hussein Tantawi, the current head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), to ousted President Hosni Mubarak.”

In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, the majority political parties are participating in criticism of the SCAF. These include the April 6 Youth Movement, Salafi parties and many liberal and pro-democratic groups.

Marches have also been held from Tahrir to the Maspero (government) television station demanding investigations into the killing over more than 25 Coptic demonstrators last month. Coptic Christians, who comprise about ten per cent of Egypt’s 80 million people, have long complained of being discriminated against by Egypt’s Sunni government and majority Sunni population.

Another contentious issue in this pre-election period is whether former members of Mubarak’s NDP party would be eligible to run for seats in Parliament. Last week, Egypt's Administrative court issued a verdict affirming their right to run.

Despite being widely blamed for corruption during the years of Mubarak's rule, NDP members are still considered popular in some parts of Egypt and are considered difficult competitors.

AFP reports that the SCAF did not want suffer the consequences of excluding hundreds of thousands of Mubarak's ruling party members or stand against the thousands of Ex-NDP members intending to run. SCAF’s view is that it is now up to voters to determine if there is a place for the NDP in the next Parliament.

Egypt’s SCAF remains largely a mystery. It is totally opaque, as is its handpicked civilian “government.” All of its members were colleagues of Mubarak’s; some were protégés. These generals have become wealthy through property and other deals allegedly facilitated by the Mubarak regime.

Some see the SCAF scurrying to free itself of its governing job as soon as possible. It has no experience in governance. None of its generals have ever lived in a democratic society. Others see it as wanting to hang on to power even after the elections. Some believe SCAF sees itself as the only actor left capable of bringing peace and stability.

This perception is found throughout the developing world and is frequently true. Others contend that SCAF and its members have too much dirty laundry that would be hung out in public if real democracy ever came to Egypt. In a real democracy, the people would be free to criticize the armed forces and to question its budget in public.

The Egyptian military needs to be no more, no less, accountable than every other public asset. And its needs to be accountable to civilians, a concept understood by the country’s generals but never experienced in real life.

Accountability is among the lessons learned from Egypt’s continuing contact with the US military, which has been responsible for facilitating more than a billion dollars in military procurements annually. With that aid come other plums, such as visits to the US and accompanying senior US military officers as observers on field trips and war games.

But how well SCAF has learned the US lessons remains unclear. Everyday Egyptians aren’t much help here; they obviously can’t demand what they’ve never known. To get the generals to accept civilian rule and civilian rules will depend on those who were victorious in Tahrir Square rising to warn the country of the danger of continuing military rule or excessive military influence in the elected governments of the future.

That will be Arab Spring 2 point 0.

US Congress: Very Busy Doing Nothing at All

2011-11-15T15:13:00.000-05:00

Egypt: Global day of solidarity against military junta's trials on Saturday

2011-11-11T10:55:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

Tomorrow, Saturday, November 12, will witness demonstrations in more than 20 capital cities around the world in support of an estimated 12,000 Egyptians who have been subjected to military trials by the country's pro tem leaders, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

The Cairo Daily News reports that protestors will converge on Egyptian embassies and consulates in DC, New York, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Oakland, Melbourne, Montreal, Geneva, Manila and elsewhere.

The demonstrations come only weeks before the first round of Parliamentary elections since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak in February.

The generals who now run Egypt have failed to lift the so-called Emergency Laws that have put an iron straightjacket on Egyptian civil rights for thirty years. These laws were used by the now deposed Mubarak to grant the security services and police virtually unfettered freedom to arrest, detain, and often torture. In this respect, little has changed since Mubarak was driven from office.

In Cairo, a new video will be released, revealing the extreme brutality used by the Egyptian military against protestors during the Maspero massacre, the newspaper said.

The Global Day of Action was called by Egyptian movements concerned that the revolution is under attack and could be crushed by growing repression. On October 9th, 28 civilians - most of them Christian Copts -- were killed at Maspero in a continuation of previous violence aimed at silencing dissent. Now the military prosecutor is charging the victims of the Maspero with causing the attack.

Copts make up about five per cent of Egypt's population. They have complained for years that they are discriminated against by the government and some of the people in employment, housing and other issues. Tensions between Copts and Muslims have turned violent many times in the past.

Lobna Darwish, an activist who was present at the Maspero massacre, said "In October the junta ran us over with tanks and shot us down in the street while manipulating state media to incite sectarian violence. The military is trying to entrench its power while weakening the revolutionary forces that ousted Mubarak. But we are still fighting for our revolution."

The newspaper noted that, under the slogan "Defend the Revolution - end military trials in Egypt", "global protests will challenge the military junta's increasing repression and express solidarity with the 12,000 Egyptians subjected to court martials, unable to call witnesses and with limited access to lawyers. These include imprisoned blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah. Alaa refused to co-operate with the military prosecutor on Oct 30th, taking a principled stance against the illegitimacy of the process - a stance since taken up widely by Egyptian social movements."

Mona Seif, Alaa Abdel Fattah's sister and co-ordinator of the No Military Trials for Civilians campaign, said "Military trials are an illegitimate & desperate measure the military junta uses to attack the social movements it fears. They've dragged 12,000 civilians through these kangaroo courts in 9 months - six times the number Mubarak tried in 30 years. Minors are serving in adult prisons, death sentences handed down, torture runs rampant."

The solidarity protests are emerging particularly from the global Occupy/Decolonize movements, with the 99% gaining inspiration from each other's struggle. After the violent eviction in Oakland, Egyptians marched on the US Embassy, while Egyptian flags and Alaa's image were raised at occupations in the US and London. Meanwhile, governments in the US and Europe continue to ally themselves with a military junta intent on stifling real democracy and social justice.

Philip Rizk said "The US gives the Egyptian military $1.3 billion in aid every year. The bullets they kill us with are made in the US. Governments the world over continue their long-term support for the military rulers of Egypt. Force your governments to stop supporting the Egyptian junta. Stop the attacks on the revolution."

Imprisoned blogger Alaa's mother, maths professor and prominent political activist Dr. Laila Soueif, is about to enter her second week of an open-ended hunger strike to protest the illegal imprisonment of her son. Soueif, 55, is a founding member of the Kefaya movement.

Soueif said "I reject that civilians be subjected to court-martial under laws put in place by illegitimate authorities that have forcefully usurped the rule of our country for decades" and promises to "continue my hunger strike until the release of my son, no matter how long his detention lasts."

Alaa is now in Tora maximum security prison. His wife, Manal, is due to give birth to their first child, Khalid, on November 24th. In a tweet, shortly before his arrest, Alaa wrote: "Dear friends and comrades, the best way to help me is to raise a lot of noise about the injustice of civilians facing military trials in Egypt."

And to make matters even more confusing for ordinary Egyptians, the ruling generals have recently proposed a document of supra-constitutional principles

Islamists as well as other political parties have continued their fervent opposition to a proposal by Deputy Prime Minister Ali El Selmi earlier this month, and have promised to stage massive protests on Friday, November 18 if their demands are not met.

El-Selmi's proposed charter of constitutional principles has triggered condemnation for the powers it gives the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), overriding an elected government.

According to the proposed charter, the new parliament will elect the 100-member constituent assembly, which will consist of 80 members from outside the parliament and 20 elected MPs reflecting the percentage of seats won by their parties.

However, SCAF has the power to veto any article it deems contradictory to the principles of previous constitutions and the interim constitutional declaration instated on March 30, 2011. SCAF would then refer the contentious article to the Supreme Constitutional Court for a final decision.

In case the assembly fails to draft the constitution within the set six-month timeframe, SCAF will have the power to dissolve it and appoint a new assembly.

Egypt's generals have ridden a rollercoaster journey through respect and affection during the Tahrir Square demonstrations to a state of suspicion and contempt now. The good will the army once enjoyed is virtually non-existent now; in the view of the demonstrators the military betrayed the Tahrir Revolution and reverted to the tactics of Egyptian strongmen dictators.

Meanwhile, the newspaper Ahram English Online has published a chronology of the SCAF's "brief history of injustice" during its tenure as the ruling power in Egypt. It outlines a number of "crimes against human rights" that the SCAF has vowed to investigate. At the top of the list is the violence in Maspero last month, in which the army has been implicated. The article also notes that despite the military's promise to investigate, there have yet to be any significant arrest over many of the abuses. The violations include torture, vandalism of churches, violence against protesters and corruption.
The army's position is that its actions have been necessary to maintain law and order and prevent the post-revolutionary euphoria from morphing into lawless chaos.

Wikileaks Targets Honduran Mogul as Drug-Dealer

2011-11-06T12:51:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

Honduras’s wealthiest businessman is suspected of being heavily involved in importing drugs to his country – and using US “war-on-drugs” money and resources since 2004 to train his private security force to keep his operation secret and to drive peasants off their land to make room for further expansion of his commercial interests.

This is the picture that emerges from several Wikileaks cables, combined with the testimony of a Honduras expert who is a professor at the University of California in Santa Cruz.

The professor is Dr. Dana Frank. She is a recognized authority on Honduras and author of a number of books on the subject.

The Honduran businessman is Miguel Facussé, a biofuels magnate whose private security guards, Frank says, “work closely with the Honduran military and police, which receive generous funding from the United States to fight the war on drugs in the region.”

Frank claims “new Wikileaks cables now reveal that the US embassy in
Honduras—and therefore the State Department—has known since 2004 that Miguel Facussé is a cocaine importer. US ‘drug war’ funds and training, in other words, are being used to support a known drug trafficker’s war against campesinos.”

In an article in The Nation magazine, Frank says Miguel Facussé Barjum, “in the (US) embassy’s words, is ‘the wealthiest, most powerful businessman in the country’, one of the country’s ‘political heavyweights’. The New York Times recently described him as ‘the octogenarian patriarch of one of the handful of families controlling much of Honduras’ economy’.”

Facussé’s nephew, Carlos Flores Facussé, served as president of Honduras from 1998 to 2002. Miguel Facussé’s Dinant corporation is a major producer of palm oil, snack foods, and other agricultural products. He was one of the key supporters of the military coup that deposed democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya on
June 28, 2009.

Prof. Frank explains that Facussé’s power base lies in the lower Aguán Valley, where campesinos originally settled in the 1970s as part of an agrarian reform strategy by the Honduran government, which encouraged hundreds of successful campesino cooperatives and collectives in the region. Beginning in 1992, though, new neoliberal governments began promoting the transfer of their lands to wealthy elites, who were quick to take advantage of state support to intimidate and coerce campesinos into selling, and in some cases to acquire land through outright fraud.

Facussé, the biggest beneficiary by far of these state policies, now claims at least 22,000 acres in the lower Aguán, at least one-fifth of the entire area, much of which he has planted in African palms for an expanding biofuel empire.

Campesino living standards in the region, meanwhile, have eroded dramatically. In December 2009 thousands of organized campesinos began staging collective recuperations of lands in the lower Aguán that they argue were stolen from them, or else legally promised to them by the government through previous agreements or edicts.

The campesinos’ efforts have been met with swift and brutal retaliation.
According to Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared of Honduras (COFADEH), the independent, highly respected human rights group, at least forty-four have been killed, at least sixteen this past summer alone.

According to a recent statement by Human Rights Watch calling
for investigation, no one has been arrested or prosecuted for any of these
murders.

Many of these killings and related attacks have been attributed to Miguel
Facussé’s private security guards, as well those of his associates. Known
locally as sicarios or hired assassins, they wear either plainclothes or Grupo
Dinant uniforms and are reported to number between 200 and 300. Facussé himself admits that on November 15, 2010, his guards shot and killed five campesinos from the MUCA at the El Tumbador community.

A July 2011 report from a joint fact-finding mission from the World Council of Churches, Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN) International, and other international groups on the killings of campesinos in the Aguán, states: “In all cases, according to witnesses and members of the peasant movements, the security guards working for Miguel Facussé and René Morales are seen to be the primary actors,” including in the deaths of three MUCA members on August 17, 2010.

Frank writes that “Alleged assassinations and armed attacks by Facussé’s guards continue. On October 5, Facussé’s security guards allegedly shot at and gravely injured two MUCA members at the San Isidro campesino community, according to FIAN. On October 11 at La Aurora, FIAN and other human rights groups report, at least six security guards on lands claimed by Facussé’s Dinant Corporation, together with police and military forces, shot and killed Santos Serfino Zelaya Ruiz, 33, and opened fire on fifteen women spreading salt, who hid for hours afterwards in the palm trees.”

She continues: “On January 8, 2011, opposition activist and journalist Juan Chinchilla was kidnapped in the Aguán Valley, tortured and interrogated. He escaped after two days and reported in an interview that his captors “almost all wore uniforms of the military, police and private guards of Miguel Facussé.”

A number of Wikileaks cables confirm the US Embassy’s suspicions about Facusse’s drug activities.

One cable, dated March 19, 2004, says, “On March 18, post received initial sketchy information involving the burned wreckage of a twin-engine aircraft in the area of Farallones in the Department of Colon on Honduras's north coast. It does not appear that any aircraft actually crashed on March 18. Upon further investigation, Post learned that the owner of the private property where the wreckage was discovered reported to the National Police on March 17 that an unauthorized plane had used a private airstrip on his property to land on March 16.

National Police responding to his report located the burned wreckage March 18. The property owner reported that his guards had shot at the plane, which then erupted into flames. This version does not track with other information post has developed on this wreckage ….

The Post…provided information to the HAF (Honduran Air Force) March 14 about a known drug trafficking flight with a 1,000 kilo cocaine shipment from Colombia, which resulted in a fruitless air interdiction attempt. Separately, a law enforcement source provided information that the aircraft successfully landed March 14 on the private property of Miguel Facusse, a prominent Honduran, who is one of the nation's wealthiest individuals, leading industrialist, and uncle of former Honduran President Carlos Flores Facusse.

Sources informed the police that the aircraft successfully landed March 14 and its cargo was off-loaded onto a convoy of vehicles that was guarded by about 30 heavily armed men. One source claimed that the property's single caretaker was shot at and fled the scene. The aircraft was then burned on March 14 during daylight hours near the runway. According to a source, a bulldozer/front-end loader buried the wreckage on the evening of March 15.

Based on Miguel Facusse's March 17 report to the National Police (see para. 1), police interviewed several of his employees at the property and residents in the area. It is clear that these witnesses were aware of what had happened but did not report it at the time to police authorities because they were afraid.

A second Embassy cable, published in 2011, notes that Facusse's property is heavily guarded and the prospect that individuals were able to access the property and, without authorization, use the airstrip is questionable. In addition, Facusse's report obviously contradicts other information received from the law enforcement source about the actual date of the event and TAT's intelligence about the March 14 air track.

The source also claimed that Facusse was present on the property at the time of the incident. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the HAF was involved in any way with the end result of this air track, except that Post finds it improbable that the HAF interceptor would not have been able to see an aircraft being burned on the ground.

Of additional interest is that this incident marks the third time in the last fifteen months that drug traffickers have been linked to this property owned by Mr. Facusse. In July 2003, a go-fast boat crashed into a sea wall on the same property and engaged in a firefight with National Police forces. Two known drug traffickers were arrested in this incident and 420 kilos of cocaine were recovered. Earlier in the year, another air track terminated at the same property….

On March 30, Honduran authorities confiscated approximately 700 kilos of cocaine and arrested six individuals in the vicinity of Santa Cruz de Yojoa, near Puerto Cortes on Honduras' Caribbean coast. Police arrived in the area as the traffickers were in the process of preparing a false compartment in a Volvo van to transport the cocaine overland. Apart from the some 125 kilos discovered in the van, a search of the property yielded another approximately 575 kilos.

Police were alerted to the situation through a confidential informant. A high ranking official within the SIPDIS Ministry of Public Security speculated the cocaine may have come from the plane discovered March 18 burned and buried on the property of Miguel Facusse, a prominent Honduran businessman.

The US State Department has declined comment on this report.

DNA KEEPS SPREADING ITS MAGIC DUST OVER WRONGLY-CONVICTED PRISONERS

2011-11-06T12:49:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

Nearly two decades after they were arrested for a crime they didn't commit, five Chicago-area men are about to be cleared.

And, as in so many other cases, it was DNA that let the genii out of the bottle.

Last week, an Illinois judge tossed out the convictions and dismissed charges against three men after DNA tests proved their innocence of a 1991 rape and murder and implicated another man in the crime. One of the three men, Robert Taylor, was freed last week. The other two, Jonathan Barr and his brother James Harden, are expected to be freed momentarily in downstate Illinois.

In a statement, The Innocence Project, which was a major factor in the outcome of these cases, said:

“The five men were convicted in a clear case of false confessions and tunnel vision. Nearly a year after a 14-year-old girl was raped and killed in Dixmoor, a village south of Chicago, police interrogated Robert Lee Veal, a 15-year-old classmate of the victim. After five hours in police custody, Veal signed a statement implicating himself and the four other defendants, who were also teenagers. Two of the other defendants, Taylor and Shainne Sharp also confessed after long interrogations. Veal and Sharp received a lenient plea in exchange for their testimony against the other three defendants, who were convicted at trial.”

The group added, “After months of delaying justice, we’re relieved that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has finally seen the light in this case. It is clear that the petition signed by more than 70,000 activists calling for justice on behalf of these men had a profound impact on prosecutors. Unfortunately, we are still fighting for justice on behalf of four men convicted in a strikingly similar crime in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood just a few years after this one.”

Their statement concluded: “This is one of the most tragic miscarriages of justice that we’ve seen in this state and perhaps the nation. Even before they were convicted, the state had DNA evidence proving that the confessions were false, yet it chose to go forward with the prosecutions in spite of this evidence and over the objections of a juvenile court judge,” said Tara Thompson of the University of Chicago Law School Exoneration Project. “This destroyed the lives of these young men while the real perpetrator was allowed to go free, destroying even more lives during a 20-year crime spree.”

DNA testing linked a rapist to the 1991 rape and murder of the 14-year-old girl.

This is a brief history of this case as prepared by The Innocence Project:

On November 19, 1991, Cateresa Matthews, a 14-year-old student at Rosa Parks Middle School in Dixmoor, IL, went missing. Her body was discovered 19 days later on a footpath in a residential neighborhood near Interstate 57 in Dixmoor. She had been raped and shot in the mouth. Nearly a year after the murder, the Illinois State Police interrogated Veal, a 15-year-old student from the same school. After five hours in police custody, Veal signed a written statement implicating himself, Taylor (15), Barr (15), Harden (17) and Sharp (17). After four hours in custody, Taylor also signed a written confession. Two days later, after 21 hours in custody, Sharp did the same.

In June 1994, before any of the teenagers were tried, the Illinois State Police crime lab identified a lone male DNA profile from sperm recovered from the victim’s body. Even though all 5 defendants were excluded as the source of the semen, the prosecution pushed forward rather than seeking the source of the semen recovered from this young victim. Based on doubts about the truthfulness of the confessions, a juvenile court judge refused to charge Barr and Taylor in adult criminal court, a decision later reversed by an appellate court. Veal and Sharp pled guilty to first-degree murder and received a 20-year sentence (they were eligible for release just 7 years from the date of their pleas) in exchange for agreeing to testify against Harden, Barr and Taylor. Over the next 2 years, all 3 were convicted, and each was sentenced to at least 80 years in prison. All subsequent appeals were denied, including a post-conviction request for DNA testing.

In August 2009, James Harden, through the University of Chicago Exoneration Project, again sought DNA testing, a request later joined by Robert Taylor through the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth and private attorney Jennifer Blagg as well as Jonathan Barr through the Innocence Project. For more than a year, the Dixmoor Police Department claimed that it was unable to locate the DNA and was threatened with contempt of court for failing to respond to a subpoena. Eventually Judge Michele Simmons ordered the Dixmoor police to allow counsel to view the evidence storage areas and log books for themselves. In short order, the Department informed the lawyers that they had finally located the evidence. DNA testing uncovered a full male profile that was entered into the national DNA database of criminal offenders, matching serial violent offender Willie Randolph.

At the time of the crime, Randolph, 33, lived in the victim’s neighborhood and had recently been released on parole after serving a 20-year sentence for armed robbery. He was apprehended by authorities on April 12, 2011. Police questioned Randolph, whose semen had been found in the victim’s body, about the murder, and he denied having sex with Matthews. Subsequently, defendants’ attorneys located another woman who says she was also raped by Randolph at the same exact location.

“It is abundantly clear that overly aggressive police interrogation techniques can cause adults to falsely confess to serious crimes – and when it comes to juveniles, it can happen at a truly alarming rate,” said Joshua Tepfer with the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth. “These techniques don’t only hurt those wrongfully convicted, but as we saw in this case, they allow the real perpetrators to go free and commit other crimes. Hopefully this case will lead the way for much-needed reforms like requiring that all police interviews and interrogations be videotaped in full.”

Brothers Barr and Harden were just 14 and 16 when Matthews was murdered. Neither Barr nor Harden confessed to the crime and have always maintained their innocence. Their father, James Harden, Sr., provided an alibi at each of their trials, testifying that he was home with the boys on the alleged day the victim was murdered. Barr and Harden’s mother and father both passed away while they were incarcerated.

Taylor was also just 14 at the time of the murder. After a relentless interrogation, he signed a written statement confessing to the crime. He recanted soon thereafter but was convicted at trial based on his statement and the testimony from Veal and Sharp. Taylor plans to live with his father, Robert Taylor, Sr., who has stood by him throughout his two-decade fight to clear his name.

“After months of offering up disingenuous arguments to delay justice, we’re relieved the State’s Attorney’s Office has finally seen the light. This is a classic example of tunnel vision. Five teens supposedly confessed to a rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl, yet they didn’t recover any DNA from the five teens, they offered no evidence that the girl had a boyfriend at the time and they recovered semen from an unknown male,” said Craig Cooley, a staff attorney with the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law.

He added: “These facts should have sent up a red flag 20 years ago, and there was certainly no reason to delay justice once Randolph was identified last spring.”

Head of Bahrain Investigation Finds “Systematic Policy of Torture”

2011-11-06T12:48:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

The head of a fact-finding commission set up by the Bahraini Royal Family to investigate reports of the maltreatment of anti-regime detainees says the government has used a “systematic policy of torture against protesters.”

Though full report of the commission is not due until November 23, Chairman Cherif Bassiouni said last week that he has found 300 cases of torture during his investigation.

"It is not possible to justify torture in any way, and despite the small number of cases, it is clear there was a systematic policy," Bassiouni said in an interview with Egyptian daily newspaper.

"I investigated and I found 300 cases of torture and I was helped in that by legal experts from Egypt and America," he added.

Bassiouni had earlier said that he did not believe maltreatment was systematic, comments that provoked an angry reaction from anti-government protesters.

Since the beginning of anti-regime protests in Bahrain in mid-February, hundreds of people have been arrested and thousands have lost their jobs for supporting the anti-government movement. Bahraini protesters demand an end to the rule of the Al Khalifa dynasty.

Many of those released from jails in Bahrain have accused the Manama regime of serious abuses. Some also charge that a member of Bahrain's royal family named Sheikha Noora bint Ibrahim Al-e Khalifa beat prisoners with sticks and rubber hoses and gave them electric shocks.

Several prisoners have died under torture and rights groups have raised concerns about the torture and abuse of detainees in Bahrain.

An earlier web version of this story by writer Kelly McEvers said, "In an interview, (Bassioni) seemed underwhelmed by the scale of Bahrain's crackdown, compared with the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, for example." A more accurate characterization is "In an interview, he said the scale of Bahrain's crackdown was 'manageable,' compared with the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia.”

Cherif Bassiouni, a high-profile Egyptian-born judge, was appointed in late July to lead an inquiry into events surrounding the protests in February and March, and the crackdown that ensued. He was mandated to investigate what went on during mass protests in February and March, and the brutal crackdown on the largely Shiite opposition that ensued. More than 30 people died, hundreds were detained and beaten, and thousands were fired from their jobs.

Bassiouni has investigated war crimes and human rights violations in the Balkans, Rwanda, Afghanistan and, most recently, Libya. He and a team of international investigators have taken testimony from both the government and the opposition. The commission will then issue a report and recommendations to Bahrain's king.

Bassiouni says unlike the 9/11 Commission, which was made up of former
politicians, or a U.N. commission that investigates a country whether the ruler likes it or not, the Bahrain commission is different.

Bassioni said during his interview, "This is a first of its kind in the world," he says. "That is, for a government to appoint a commission of inquiry but to select the composition of the committee from international personalities and to give it total independence."

Nevertheless, skeptics are pointing out that Commission is being financed ny the government of Bahrain, that a former government employee is arranging his media availabilities.

But Bassiouni says,” if members of Bahrain's security forces are found to have committed torture, he will recommend they be prosecuted. What he says he can't control is whether these recommendations are heeded or whether those who ordered the torture will ever be known.”

He says he hopes the commission will at least serve as a public record — a kind of South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission on paper — that might one day help the disenfranchised Shiite majority of Bahrain reconcile with the country's Sunni leadership.

At a press conference in Bahrain's capital, Manama, Khalil al-Marzooq, a leader of the country's main Shiite opposition group, said by focusing on individual cases of abuse, Bassiouni's commission won't get at the larger problems.

"It means more than somebody fired you. It means more than a policeman beat you in the street. It's more than a policeman tortured you in custody," he says.

"It's a structural issue.

A structural issue, Marzooq says, that can be fixed only by reforming the
political system, not by inviting international legal scholars to clean up
Bahrain's image.

LIberties We Have Lost Since 9/11

2011-11-06T12:45:00.002-05:00

By William Fisher

As the country enters its second post-9/11 decade, I asked renowned human rights crusader Chip Pitts about what civil liberties/human rights we’ve collectively lost in the so-called “war on terror” as what was previously legal has now become criminal.

Here’s what he said:

“Virtually all of our most fundamental rights and liberties have been affected for the worse, with little or no awareness among the populace at large. The ignorance is no accident, but the product of conscious mendacity, manipulation and complicity among the leading political parties, all branches of government, defense contractors and the entrenched military-industrial-surveillance complex, and mainstream media – all of which (with occasional notable exceptions) are tragically pulled by various perverse incentives in the direction of trying to out-do each other in pandering to the basest fears and instincts of the American Body Politic”.

He added: “A huge number of legal violations have occurred, ranging from the momentous (illegal war) to the mundane (failure to fully notify the appropriate committees of Congress about the illegal warrantless surveillance as required under the National Security Act), but I’ll limit myself to highlighting the most significant to the rights of the American public.”

How has the ‘War on Terror’ impacted the Rule of Law?

“The first category of infringements I would place under the general rubric of undermining the Rule of Law. Although all the regressions could be put in this category, some strike more than others at the very concept itself. If the Rule of Law means anything, it means that everyone is subject to the same rules of general application and that those rules are fairly applied: a “government of laws, and not of men” as founding father and American President John Adams famously put it.
“Yet we now have a much more arbitrary system of justice, in which people can be deemed second-class citizens and have their assets seized, have their travel and other rights burdened, and be stigmatized, imprisoned, or even killed merely by essentially unreviewable executive fiat.”

That’s the net effect of new approaches including the following, all of which impose serious burdens without the traditional checks and balances and independent reviews previously enshrined in law:

· Asset Seizure section 106 of the Patriot Act, which has led for example to the closure on legally dubious grounds of nearly all of the major Muslim charities in the United States, among other seizures occurring merely upon executive branch “designation”,

· the notoriously error-ridden “watch lists” and “no fly” lists which have thrown certain innocent individuals into a Kafkaesque Hell from which there’s no easy escape, setting a precedent for further pernicious “government by watch-list” that extra-legally allocates benefits and burdens,

· the TSA bodyscanners, which don’t work to detect the plastic explosives which were their supposed reason for being, as noted by sources as diverse as the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, and CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta – but have been shown to pose risks to privacy and health, disproportionately burdening vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, religious objectors, and the immune-compromised who risk serious harm from the cumulative effects of long-term radiation exposure,

· the reality of profiling on racial, religious, ethnic, and national origin grounds, despite official rhetoric and policies against it, facilitated by reliance on a (likely unconstitutional) broad exception relating to national security and border-related investigations,

· the risk that anyone could be subject to the military commissions regime, a novel secondary justice system in which the executive branch is judge, jury, and executioner and in which a person may find themselves arbitrarily placed without principled distinction simply because they’ve been labeled a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant” (thus US citizen Jose Padilla was shifted at the last minute from the military to the civilian regime after years of being imprisoned, tortured, and denied counsel as an “enemy combatant,” and shoe bomber Richard Reid was tried in civilian court 400 other terrorists, but others find themselves subjected to the lower evidentiary and justice standards of the military regime, without reasoned explanation),

· Assassination (defenders call it legal “targeted killing”) even of US citizens off the battlefield, without due process of law, without lawyers or the right to confront the evidence or witnesses against them, without the right to trial by jury or any of the other protections guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Haven’t we also experienced specific infringements of fundamental rights crucial to our national identity and fundamental values?
“We certainly have. Even a cursory review of the Constitutional protections that have been compromised illustrates the point. For example:

· The First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, religion, and petitioning government for redress of grievances, all newly under pressure from widespread warrantless surveillance, secret datamining of private data, surreptitious infiltration of peaceful protest and solidarity groups, President Obama’s increased prosecution of supposedly protected whistleblowers and leakers, and changes in the law allowing criminalization and chilling of such speech and association promoting peace and human rights under the Patriot Act’s “material support” provision (which criminalized “expert advice and assistance” and was upheld in the US Supreme Court’s closely divided, erroneous decision Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project),

· The Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant and probable cause to believe a crime or terrorism was involved, which also have been eroded by the FISA Amendments Act (allowing the Bush-era illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans’ phone calls, emails, and web-surfing habits), Patriot Act provisions including section 505 regarding the notorious and repeatedly abused National Security Letters (allowing the FBI to search a wide variety of library and business records without probable cause, any judicial review, or notifying the target), section 215 (the library and business records provision requiring the secret FISA court to approve searches on a mere “relevance” standard and probably also being interpreted to allow a secret datamining program some Senators say would “stun” and “anger” the US public if revealed), section 213 (allowing sneak and peek” secret black bag job searches of homes), and section 218 (basically importing expansive foreign intelligence surveillance powers into domestic criminal law).

· The Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law has been infringed not only by the extreme measure of assassination noted above, but also by increasingly routine arbitrary changes of the rules—contrary to President Obama’s promises -- so as to block accountability for other violations of fundamental rights, as with the use of the state secrets privilege, standing, and other procedural doctrines to completely immunize those who labeled citizens like Jose Padilla “enemy combatants”, or those who tortured, participated in extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and “disappearing” people) to places of torture, and planned and conducted warrantless surveillance,

· The Eighth Amendment rights to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (also protected by an international treaty, the Convention Against Torture, signed by Pres. Ronald Reagan, and by federal statute), which has been rhetorically embraced by both the Bush and Obama administrations but ignored in practice (especially by the former, but also allegedly to a lesser extent even by the latter, in cases such as those of Bradley Manning, Gulet Muhammed, and in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Have these major infringements spilled over into the routine law enforcement and justice systems of the United States?

“Some of us had naïve expectations that these developments wouldn’t further affect ordinary citizens. We all know that legions of ordinary citizens already have been harmed and had their privacy and liberties infringed by National Security Letters and other Patriot Act provisions, as decades of gradual progress in expanding rights have been undermined and generations who have fought for hard-won liberties have seen both their liberty and their security dramatically reduced this past decade. This category includes:

· The increasing militarization of domestic policing and intelligence gathering, as seen in such developments as the Pentagon’s new Northern Command, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) involvement in domestic intelligence and counterterror efforts, Pentagon involvement in infiltration of domestic peace and anti-war groups, increasing deployment of weaponized drones within US borders as well as at the borders, and the surveillance, biometric, and other equipment and weapons defense contractors have imported from Iraq and Afghanistan into American streets, all as described (among others) by Dana Priest and Bill Arkin in their Top Secret America Washington Post series and book, and all in great tension with our Constitutional regime and historic bias against domestic deployment of military forces as reflected in Posse Comitatus and other laws,

· Although sold as temporary, emergency counterterror measures, these laws and approaches such as the Patriot Act have only become more permanent and used overwhelmingly for routine, domestic law enforcement (such as drug cases and minor offenses) – as repeatedly confirmed in the government’s own reports, such as the recent one described by the ACLU pertaining to “sneak and peek” home search warrants -- again contrary to the basic premises and fundamental laws of our democratic republic and its origins in a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights arranged precisely against such arbitrary and unconstrained power.

· The way the laws have, as described above, been used to immunize high officials and the powerful from accountability of any type (no torture victim has received his or her day in US court!) at the very time laws for lesser violations have resulted in the United States carrying the dubious honor of having imprisoned more of its population, in both absolute and percentage terms, than any other nation in the world. This discrepancy remains a substantial driver for the Occupy movement and can be expected to continue to drive social instability, protest, and conflict unless and until the gaps in transparency and accountability are remedied and again realigned with the original, sensible Constitutional vision and allocation of rights and powers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Chip Pitts teaches human rights and corporate social responsibility law at Stanford Law School and Oxford University, and serves as a volunteer activist for a number of organizations and initiatives seeking to advance human rights, civil liberties, social justice, and economic development.

WikiLeaks Reveals U.S. Ties to Honduran Drug Dealer

2011-11-03T18:47:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

U.S. `drug war' funds and training are being used to support a known drug trafficker’s war against campesinos, a Latin American expert at the University of California at Santa Cruz charged today.

Prof. Dana Frank said today, "New Wikileaks cables reveal that the U.S. embassy in Honduras -- and therefore the State Department -- has known since 2004 that Miguel Facussé, the richest man in Honduras, who is allegedly responsible for the deaths of campesino activists in the Aguan Valley, is a cocaine importer.

“The U.S. is funding and training Honduran military and police that are conducting joint operations with the security guards of a known drug trafficker to violently repress a campesino movement on behalf of Miguel Facussé’s dubious claims to vast swathes of the Aguán Valley, in order to support his African palm biofuels empire.”

She added, "Despite strong anti-drug rhetoric from U.S. officials, State Department cables recently made available by Wikileaks show that the U.S. has been aware of the drug ties of one of Honduras’ most powerful and wealthy individuals since 2004, yet has continued to support him.”

She charged that “U.S. military and police assistance is also aiding the businessman, landowner and coup-backer Miguel Facussé, in a campaign of repression targeted at the campesinos whose land Facussé wants for production of palm oil,” adding:

“Despite the objections of 87 members of Congress, U.S. funding for the Honduran military and police continues, even though reports continue to emerge of police involvement in killings, such as in the recent case of the son of a university rector, and journalists and human rights activists continue to be targeted, with impunity."

The U.S. funds numerous programs in Latin America. One of them is known as The Central America Regional Security Initiative. Its goals are to create safe streets for the citizens in the region; disrupt the movement of criminals and contraband within and between the nations of Central America; support the development of strong, capable and accountable Central American Governments; Re-establish effective state presence and security in communities at risk; and foster enhanced levels of security and rule of law coordination and cooperation between the nations of the region.

The Public Record has so far been unsuccessful in asking the State Department to confirm this story and estimate the amount of money being used for these activities.

Frank is the author of several books including Bananeras: Women Transforming the Banana Unions of Latin America, which focuses on Honduras. Since the coup she has spoken widely on Honduras for National Public Radio, Al-Jazeera English TV, Free Speech Radio News, and radio throughout the US, Honduras, and elsewhere, and published op-eds in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury-News, LATimes.com, ChicagoTribune.com, The Progressive.org, Common Dreams, CounterPunch, and the Huffington Post, and multiple articles for The Nation and its website. She recently wrote "WikiLeaks Honduras: U.S. Linked to Brutal Businessman." (http://www.thenation.com/article/164120/wikileaks-honduras-us-linked-brutal-businessman)

Campesinos are Latin American peasants, usually farmers.

Egypt’s Democracy: A Sometime Thing?

2011-11-03T18:45:00.001-05:00

By William Fisher

As Egypt’s military rulers were pardoning 334 of the thousands being held for military trials, the generals may be preparing to administer the coup de grâce to Egypt’s nascent democracy.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has drafted a set of "supra-constitutional" principles that would grant the military outsized influence in writing a new constitution, including the power to object to any article in the new constitution, and keep the armed forces' budget confidential.

Messages of strong condemnation have greeted the move from numerous political forces. The April 6 Youth Movement, Al Wasat Party, Mohammed ElBaradei and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) of the Muslim Brotherhood, all have attacked the new proposals as a way for the SCAF to avoid accountability.

The drafting of the “supra-constitutional” amendments is seen as simply one more instance of the Army’s inability to govern in a democratic context. After a honeymoon period brought on because the Army declined to attack the protesters in Tahrir Square last January, the military’s credibility has fallen precipitously.

That downward trajectory has been hastened by a series of SCAF’s self-inflicted wounds. It arrested an estimated 12,000 demonstrators and brought them to trial before military courts. It has also been vilified for failing to lift the so-called Emergency Laws in effect for 30 years under Mubarak. These laws give the police and the security services wide latitude to arrest and detain without probable (or any) cause, and to try lawyerless defendants who are often unaware of the charges against them,

The use of military courts – harkening back to the dark years of the Mubarak regime –has brought noisy and continuous opposition from political parties and social movements of all persuasions.

In the period preceding and following the fall of Mubarak on Febrnary 11, army military police rounded up thousands of peaceful demonstrators and threw them into prisons. There is ample credible testimony regarding their treatment in custody: The women were given “virginity” tests; the men were tortured and there were a number of deaths in detention.

This week’s pardon of a few hundred prisoners seems bizarre, given the total in custody. No explanation was forthcoming regarding how these prisoners were selected to be freed.

On the council's Facebook page, it said the decision reflects its belief in the importance of communication with Egyptian people and the revolution youth. The names of the detainees to be pardoned will be announced later, the statement added.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s “other” government – civilians who have zero independent power and merely put a civilian face on military decisions – have been trying to make the generals look as good as possible.

Deputy Prime Minister Ali Al Selmi held a meeting with over 500 political figures to discuss the constitutional draft. However a number of parties, including the FJP and Salafi groups, boycotted the meeting to protest its inclusion of many former National Democratic Party members.

Responding to the new amendments, the Muslim Brotherhood demanded the dismissal of the entire government if it "continues on this course of action."

Criticism of the SCAF grew even more heated recently after the council
detained activist Alaa Abd El Fattah for 15 days pending investigations into
charges he humiliated the armed forces. The young blogger has refused to speak to military prosecutors or stand trial on the grounds he should be tried in a civilian court, according to the newspaper, “Al-Masry Al-Youm.”

The Project on Middle East Democracy, ordinarily a reliable source, reported that “Thousands gathered on Tuesday in Cairo and Alexandria to demonstrate against the detainment of prominent blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah as well as on going military trials to which civilians are subjected. They also expressed support for Abdel Fattah's decision to refuse questioning by the military prosecution.

Protests in Cairo arrived at the prison where Abdel Fattah is currently being held, while in Alexandria demonstrations were held outside a military headquarters where chants condemning military trials could be heard.

Rights groups, including Amnesty International, as well as presidential hopeful Mohammed Saleem Al Awaa, have all denounced the arrest and demanded Abdel Fattah's immediate release.”

Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said in a conference address that the armed forces are trying to transfer power to an elected civilian administration. The armed forces are protecting the current transition period, Sharaf added.

“Egypt is undergoing political developments that aim to achieve more democracy, transparency, and an improved standard of living.”

He said the government is working to make structural reforms to provide more work opportunities, particularly for low-income people. Rights groups and activists have accused SCAF of mismanaging the transition period and making unilateral decisions without consulting political forces.

Farid Zahran, member of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, said, "The main issue that triggered heated argument was the secrecy clause protecting the military's budget. It would have been acceptable if they suggested that some items are confidential, but the military budget must be made public."

Liberty Lost

2011-11-02T14:35:00.001-05:00

William Fisher

As the country enters its second post-9/11 decade, I asked renowned human rights crusader Chip Pitts about what civil liberties/human rights we’ve collectively lost in the so-called “war on terror” as what was previously legal has now become criminal.

Here’s what he said:

“Virtually all of our most fundamental rights and liberties have been affected for the worse, with little or no awareness among the populace at large. The ignorance is no accident, but the product of conscious mendacity, manipulation and complicity among the leading political parties, all branches of government, defense contractors and the entrenched military-industrial-surveillance complex, and mainstream media – all of which (with occasional notable exceptions) are tragically pulled by various perverse incentives in the direction of trying to out-do each other in pandering to the basest fears and instincts of the American Body Politic”.

He added: “A huge number of legal violations have occurred, ranging from the momentous (illegal war) to the mundane (failure to fully notify the appropriate committees of Congress about the illegal warrantless surveillance as required under the National Security Act), but I’ll limit myself to highlighting the most significant to the rights of the American public.”

How has the ‘War on Terror’ impacted the Rule of Law?

“The first category of infringements I would place under the general rubric of undermining the Rule of Law. Although all the regressions could be put in this category, some strike more than others at the very concept itself. If the Rule of Law means anything, it means that everyone is subject to the same rules of general application and that those rules are fairly applied: a “government of laws, and not of men” as founding father and American President John Adams famously put it.
“Yet we now have a much more arbitrary system of justice, in which people can be deemed second-class citizens and have their assets seized, have their travel and other rights burdened, and be stigmatized, imprisoned, or even killed merely by essentially unreviewable executive fiat.”

That’s the net effect of new approaches including the following, all of which impose serious burdens without the traditional checks and balances and independent reviews previously enshrined in law:

· Asset Seizure section 106 of the Patriot Act, which has led for example to the closure on legally dubious grounds of nearly all of the major Muslim charities in the United States, among other seizures occurring merely upon executive branch “designation”,

· the notoriously error-ridden “watch lists” and “no fly” lists which have thrown certain innocent individuals into a Kafkaesque Hell from which there’s no easy escape, setting a precedent for further pernicious “government by watch-list” that extra-legally allocates benefits and burdens,

· the TSA bodyscanners, which don’t work to detect the plastic explosives which were their supposed reason for being, as noted by sources as diverse as the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, and CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta – but have been shown to pose risks to privacy and health, disproportionately burdening vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, religious objectors, and the immune-compromised who risk serious harm from the cumulative effects of long-term radiation exposure,

· the reality of profiling on racial, religious, ethnic, and national origin grounds, despite official rhetoric and policies against it, facilitated by reliance on a (likely unconstitutional) broad exception relating to national security and border-related investigations,

· the risk that anyone could be subject to the military commissions regime, a novel secondary justice system in which the executive branch is judge, jury, and executioner and in which a person may find themselves arbitrarily placed without principled distinction simply because they’ve been labeled a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant” (thus US citizen Jose Padilla was shifted at the last minute from the military to the civilian regime after years of being imprisoned, tortured, and denied counsel as an “enemy combatant,” and shoe bomber Richard Reid was tried in civilian court 400 other terrorists, but others find themselves subjected to the lower evidentiary and justice standards of the military regime, without reasoned explanation),

· Assassination (defenders call it legal “targeted killing”) even of US citizens off the battlefield, without due process of law, without lawyers or the right to confront the evidence or witnesses against them, without the right to trial by jury or any of the other protections guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Haven’t we also experienced specific infringements of fundamental rights crucial to our national identity and fundamental values?
“We certainly have. Even a cursory review of the Constitutional protections that have been compromised illustrates the point. For example:

· The First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, religion, and petitioning government for redress of grievances, all newly under pressure from widespread warrantless surveillance, secret datamining of private data, surreptitious infiltration of peaceful protest and solidarity groups, President Obama’s increased prosecution of supposedly protected whistleblowers and leakers, and changes in the law allowing criminalization and chilling of such speech and association promoting peace and human rights under the Patriot Act’s “material support” provision (which criminalized “expert advice and assistance” and was upheld in the US Supreme Court’s closely divided, erroneous decision Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project),

· The Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant and probable cause to believe a crime or terrorism was involved, which also have been eroded by the FISA Amendments Act (allowing the Bush-era illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans’ phone calls, emails, and web-surfing habits), Patriot Act provisions including section 505 regarding the notorious and repeatedly abused National Security Letters (allowing the FBI to search a wide variety of library and business records without probable cause, any judicial review, or notifying the target), section 215 (the library and business records provision requiring the secret FISA court to approve searches on a mere “relevance” standard and probably also being interpreted to allow a secret datamining program some Senators say would “stun” and “anger” the US public if revealed), section 213 (allowing sneak and peek” secret black bag job searches of homes), and section 218 (basically importing expansive foreign intelligence surveillance powers into domestic criminal law).

· The Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law has been infringed not only by the extreme measure of assassination noted above, but also by increasingly routine arbitrary changes of the rules—contrary to President Obama’s promises -- so as to block accountability for other violations of fundamental rights, as with the use of the state secrets privilege, standing, and other procedural doctrines to completely immunize those who labeled citizens like Jose Padilla “enemy combatants”, or those who tortured, participated in extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and “disappearing” people) to places of torture, and planned and conducted warrantless surveillance,

· The Eighth Amendment rights to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (also protected by an international treaty, the Convention Against Torture, signed by Pres. Ronald Reagan, and by federal statute), which has been rhetorically embraced by both the Bush and Obama administrations but ignored in practice (especially by the former, but also allegedly to a lesser extent even by the latter, in cases such as those of Bradley Manning, Gulet Muhammed, and in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Have these major infringements spilled over into the routine law enforcement and justice systems of the United States?

“Some of us had naïve expectations that these developments wouldn’t further affect ordinary citizens. We all know that legions of ordinary citizens already have been harmed and had their privacy and liberties infringed by National Security Letters and other Patriot Act provisions, as decades of gradual progress in expanding rights have been undermined and generations who have fought for hard-won liberties have seen both their liberty and their security dramatically reduced this past decade. This category includes:

· The increasing militarization of domestic policing and intelligence gathering, as seen in such developments as the Pentagon’s new Northern Command, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) involvement in domestic intelligence and counterterror efforts, Pentagon involvement in infiltration of domestic peace and anti-war groups, increasing deployment of weaponized drones within US borders as well as at the borders, and the surveillance, biometric, and other equipment and weapons defense contractors have imported from Iraq and Afghanistan into American streets, all as described (among others) by Dana Priest and Bill Arkin in their Top Secret America Washington Post series and book, and all in great tension with our Constitutional regime and historic bias against domestic deployment of military forces as reflected in Posse Comitatus and other laws,

· Although sold as temporary, emergency counterterror measures, these laws and approaches such as the Patriot Act have only become more permanent and used overwhelmingly for routine, domestic law enforcement (such as drug cases and minor offenses) – as repeatedly confirmed in the government’s own reports, such as the recent one described by the ACLU pertaining to “sneak and peek” home search warrants -- again contrary to the basic premises and fundamental laws of our democratic republic and its origins in a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights arranged precisely against such arbitrary and unconstrained power.

· The way the laws have, as described above, been used to immunize high officials and the powerful from accountability of any type (no torture victim has received his or her day in US court!) at the very time laws for lesser violations have resulted in the United States carrying the dubious honor of having imprisoned more of its population, in both absolute and percentage terms, than any other nation in the world. This discrepancy remains a substantial driver for the Occupy movement and can be expected to continue to drive social instability, protest, and conflict unless and until the gaps in transparency and accountability are remedied and again realigned with the original, sensible Constitutional vision and allocation of rights and powers.
__________________________________________________________________
Chip Pitts teaches human rights and corporate social responsibility law at Stanford Law School and Oxford University, and serves as a volunteer activist for a number of organizations and initiatives seeking to advance human rights, civil liberties, social justice, and economic development.

Egypt’s Democracy: A Sometime Thing

2011-11-02T14:34:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

As Egypt’s military rulers were pardoning 334 of the thousands being held for military trials, the generals may be preparing to administer the coup de grâce to Egypt’s nascent democracy.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has drafted a set of "supra-constitutional" principles that would grant the military outsized influence in writing a new constitution, including the power to object to any article in the new constitution, and keep the armed forces' budget confidential.

Messages of strong condemnation have greeted the move from numerous political forces. The April 6 Youth Movement, Al Wasat Party, Mohammed ElBaradei and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) of the Muslim Brotherhood, all have attacked the new proposals as a way for the SCAF to avoid accountability.

The drafting of the “supra-constitutional” amendments is seen as simply one more instance of the Army’s inability to govern in a democratic context. After a honeymoon period brought on because the Army declined to attack the protesters in Tahrir Square last January, the military’s credibility has fallen precipitously.

That downward trajectory has been hastened by a series of SCAF’s self-inflicted wounds. It arrested an estimated 12,000 demonstrators and brought them to trial before military courts. It has also been vilified for failing to lift the so-called Emergency Laws in effect for 30 years under Mubarak. These laws give the police and the security services wide latitude to arrest and detain without probable (or any) cause, and to try lawyerless defendants who are often unaware of the charges against them,

The use of military courts – harkening back to the dark years of the Mubarak regime – has brought noisy and continuous opposition from political parties and social movements of all persuasions.

In the period preceding and following the fall of Mubarak on Febrnary 11, army military police rounded up thousands of peaceful demonstrators and threw them into prisons. There is ample credible testimony regarding their treatment in custody: The women were given “virginity” tests; the men were tortured and there were a number of deaths in detention.

This week’s pardon of a few hundred prisoners seems bizarre, given the total in custody. No explanation was forthcoming regarding how these prisoners were selected to be freed.

On the council's Facebook page, it said the decision reflects its belief in the importance of communication with Egyptian people and the revolution youth. The names of the detainees to be pardoned will be announced later, the statement added.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s “other” government – civilians who have zero independent power and merely put a civilian face on military decisions – have been trying to make the generals look as good as possible.

Deputy Prime Minister Ali Al Selmi held a meeting with over 500 political figures to discuss the constitutional draft. However a number of parties, including the FJP and Salafi groups, boycotted the meeting to protest its inclusion of many former National Democratic Party members.

Responding to the new amendments, the Muslim Brotherhood demanded the dismissal of the entire government if it "continues on this course of action."

Criticism of the SCAF grew even more heated recently after the council
detained activist Alaa Abd El Fattah for 15 days pending investigations into
charges he humiliated the armed forces. The young blogger has refused to speak to military prosecutors or stand trial on the grounds he should be tried in a civilian court, according to the newspaper, “Al-Masry Al-Youm.”

The Project on Middle East Democracy, ordinarily a reliable source, reported that “Thousands gathered on Tuesday in Cairo and Alexandria to demonstrate against the detainment of prominent blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah as well as on going military trials to which civilians are subjected. They also expressed support for Abdel Fattah's decision to refuse questioning by the military prosecution.

Protests in Cairo arrived at the prison where Abdel Fattah is currently being held, while in Alexandria demonstrations were held outside a military headquarters where chants condemning military trials could be heard.

Rights groups, including Amnesty International, as well as presidential hopeful Mohammed Saleem Al Awaa, have all denounced the arrest and demanded Abdel Fattah's immediate release.”

Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said in a conference address that the armed forces are trying to transfer power to an elected civilian administration. The armed forces are protecting the current transition period, Sharaf added.

“Egypt is undergoing political developments that aim to achieve more democracy, transparency, and an improved standard of living.”

He said the government is working to make structural reforms to provide more work opportunities, particularly for low-income people. Rights groups and activists have accused SCAF of mismanaging the transition period and making unilateral decisions without consulting political forces.

Farid Zahran, member of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, said, "The main issue that triggered heated argument was the secrecy clause protecting the military's budget. It would have been acceptable if they suggested that some items are confidential, but the military budget must be made public."

LIBYA: From Revolution to Governance

2011-10-29T17:06:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Anyone remember Judith Miller?

She is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times who went to jail rather than reveal her sources to a judge. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion generated much controversy. A number of stories she wrote while working for The Times later turned out to be inaccurate or completely false.
She had an awkward departure from The Times in November 2005, and later became a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. Late last year, numerous media outlets reported that she had signed on as a contributing writer to the conservative magazine Newsmax.
In her latest editorial romp, she asks the question, “Will Democracy Prevail in Libya?”

That, of course, is the question everyone is asking since the death of Muammar Qaddafi. Ms. Miller weighs in with, “The death of Muammar Qaddafi means that a 40-year era of repression in that oil rich country is over. That is good news. But the next 48 hours will be crucial in determining Libya's future. This is the moment of truth for the Transitional National Council (TNC) and its chairman Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and prime minister Mahmoud Jabril.”

OK so far. This is pretty much what everyone already knows and advice that some analysts are recommending.

Miller then launches into a rant about the incredibly difficult things that the TNC and its leaders will have to achieve before Libya has even a remote chance of becoming a peaceful, representative, stable democracy serving the needs of its people. And they are incredibly difficult.

As a micro example of the macro changes that will put Libya on the road to some form of democracy, Miller tells this anecdote:

“Only last week as a delegation from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were meeting at the Finance Ministry in Tripoli, unknown armed militia men disrupted the meeting and ‘arrested’ a Libyan member of the Ministry of Finance delegation as the astonished visitors looked on, according to Libyan press reports.”

We should not be surprised by just about anything that happens in Libya in the coming weeks. Chalk it up to The Fog of War. But, as Miller correctly points out, “So far, the TNC has been unable to establish order or a political consensus among its 35 members from different regions, tribes, and ideologies. Nor has it been able to give control either its Military Council, nor the numerous militias throughout Libya that have been running their own towns and competing for control.”

Right. And she goes on to admonish: “So celebration is premature. Half of the TNC members continue to live in Benghazi; others are now in Tripoli. Various spokesmen contradict one another about basic facts regarding the economy, political maneuverings, and the militia which provides security at some key government ministries. The airport is controlled by another militia.”

The problem, Miller says, “is not money.” She goes on to explain that Libya is one of the world's largest producers of ‘sweet,’ light crude oil. And the U.S. has contributed $135 million in aid to Libya's new leaders since February. The Libyan assets that were frozen after Qaddafi was forced to flee are being unfrozen.

She then announces, “This is potentially a great moment for Libya. Its version of the "Arab Spring" which erupted in February and forced Qaddafi and his rapacious family from power, has now prevailed.”

But here comes her zinger: “…without American or NATO boots on the ground, and without a Libyan army that is loyal to the TNC and able and willing to restore order, Washington will just have to hope that the TNC can achieve the control that has so far seemed beyond its grasp.”

Miller’s prescription is right out of the neo-conservatives’ playbook. As they were able to incontestably demonstrate in the throughout the peaceful hamlets of Iraq and Afghanistan, to name but a few, “American or NATO boots on the ground” solves all problems. Just like they are doing in Afghanistan. Right!

I take a dim view of American boots – especially American – anywhere near Libya. First, it’s unclear that the US has any compelling national interest in Libya; NATO more closely has a dog in this game -- oil. Second, we’re suffering through the most painful economic environment in a generation – we probably can’t afford a third war. Third, the American people are war-weary; if the voters don’t have your back in wartime, you’ve lost. Finally, it is doubtful we have the troops – at least not the right kind of troops.

Our GIs know nothing about Libya, its people, its customs, its languages, its tribes. This is part of your armor if you’re going to try to use soft power, or smart power, rather than blunt trauma. Or are we going to have US or NATO troops bashing down doors in the middle of the night and dragging families out of their beds? That will certainly build one-ness among the country’s diverse population. We see how well that’s working in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, the job that will sooner or later have to be done in Libya – and it will take years – is a heart-stoppingly complex job of internal development. Qaddafi was beyond clever in organizing his regime (or, more correctly, not organizing it.) He put no robust institutions in place. And since there were no jobs to fill in his empty institutions, there was no need to train people to occupy chairs that weren’t there. After all, Libya has oil!

The world is full of talented, sensitive, tough, multilingual development specialists. And they are not just the “Beltway Bandits” of the Washington DC area. This global fraternity/sorority of individual and corporate development specialists – including UN agencies -- knows how to help Afghans write a Constitution, organize a political structure that is truly representative of Libya’s people, monitor free and fair elections, help lawmakers and judges build a Code of criminal and civil conduct, work to build a rule of law, expand the skills capacities in the various ministries, and begin to wean Libya off its one-product status by introducing foreign investment in industry and agriculture and working with farmers and industrialists to bring Libya the most up-to-date and proven techniques and technologies to help make these ventures successful.

If the US is asked to help in this undertaking, it should give serious consideration. But many other countries – some with far more substantial and apparent national security interests than the US has – are at least as well equipped.

So, no, I don’t think with Judy Miller that this is not the time for celebration. It is time for a huge, albeit relatively brief celebration. But Libyans would do well to keep a watchful eye on Egypt to fully appreciate how hard it is to turn from revolution to governance.

How Do They Sleep At Night?

2011-10-29T17:04:00.000-05:00

By William Fisher

Cecilia Munoz has to be the most frustrated official in the Obama White House.

A longtime civil rights advocate, she was a major player at the National Council of LaRaza (NCLR), a non-profit organization established to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. In 2000, the 44-year-old was named a MacArthur Fellow for her work on civil rights and immigration.

Today, she’s the president’s chief advisor on Immigration Issues. Or perhaps we should say Deportation Issues.

When the PBS series, “Frontline,” did an hour-long piece on the immigration situation in the US today, it fell to Munoz to try to explain why the Obama Administration is deporting 400,000 people every year and racking up the largest number of deportations of any president in American history.

The 400,000 were supposed to be “serious criminals” caught by a program called Secure Communities, in which anyone booked at a local police station has his/her fingerprints automatically sent to the database of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). But people are also booked at police stations because of minor infractions such as a broken tail light spotted during a routine traffic stop, driving without a license, a 10-year-old bounced check – you get the idea.

These dangerous public enemies constitute half of all the “serious criminals” being deported. In the process, ICE is tearing families apart. It is deporting the parents of children born in the US – leaving the kids with relatives when possible, with public assistance agencies where not. Immigrants who may have been hard at work in the US for 20 years, raising families who obey the law and contribute to their communities, and with no criminal record, suddenly find themselves imprisoned in an ICE facility, where they could remain for a week, a month, or years. They have little due process, usually no lawyers, and the women are routinely subjected to sexual harassment.

Maria Hinojosa, who anchored the FRONTLINE program, asked Munoz, “Will the Obama Administration continue to oversee the deportation of 400,000 people each year?”

Munoz: “As long as Congress gives us the money to deport 400,000 people each year, that’s what the Administration is going to do.”

She adds: “We will be strategic about how we do it.”

Hinojosa: “Are you saying that there are 400,000 serious criminals who are not in jail now and who should be deported? Where are they? And how are you going to find them?”

Munoz: “The job of the executive branch of government is to implement laws passed by Congress. How we do it matters a lot, but there will be collateral damage. There will be parents separated from children.”

Collateral damage? It is mind-blowing to think that Ms. Munoz is actually speaking for the President of the United States, who is likely off in the hinterlands, making speeches to reassure Latino voters that comprehensive immigration reform is at the top of his priority tree.

Getting even further down in the weeds, Hinojosa interviewed Michael Rozos, who recently retired as head of an ICE field office. She questioned him about how ICE goes about making sure that it meets its 400,000 p.a. quota.

ROZOS: “Because the number 400,000 was what was agreed upon, what’s happened is you pick up whatever you can— so the low-hanging fruit, the high-hanging fruit and all the fruit that’s in between. You would pick up whatever you could and take your collateral apprehensions, which would be the other illegals that may be present when you’re arresting a fugitive, and bring them into custody, as well, to get the numbers moved up.”

Hinojosa: “The pressure to move the numbers up was evident in an internal ICE memo last year. ICE was at risk of falling “well under the agency’s goal of 400,000 deportations,” the memo says. In particular, it highlighted the shortfall of ‘non-criminal’ removals. So basically, Washington is setting some numbers, and on the ground, if you’re not meeting those numbers, then you’re being judged by not meeting those numbers.”

ROZOS: “You’re being judged or you’re being summoned to Washington. You know, you’ll get this ‘Be in my office tomorrow morning’ and so kind of a thing.”

That’s how ICE finds 400,000 “serious criminals” to deport every year.

And deporting 400,000 people is what the Obama Administration believes it will take to somewhat blunt the incessant primeval screams from the anti-immigrant Right – without completely alienating Latino voters without whom Obama is likely to be a one-term president.

Having served in government, I can recall my bosses making decisions I thought were wrong. They put me out of sorts for a day or so.

But I have never before experienced a professional who seems so willing to abandon both his principles and the millions who voted to put him where he is.

Maybe I’m just being naïve about all the compromises you have to make to get anything done in Washington these days, but this is not the change I can believe in.