Impunity Watch: North America

Supreme Court will Hear Case on Voter ID Cards

By Jacob Leon Beier
Impunity Watch Senior Desk Officer, North America

WASHINGTON, United States of America – The New York Times reports that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to grant certiorari to an Indiana case, which contests the constitutionality of the state law that obligates voters to present a “government-issued” state identification card at voting polls.  Indiana Democrats filed the claim, which a federal appeals court denied in an opinion by Judge Richard Posner in January 2005.

The Indiana law was passed in 2005.  Approximately 20 other states have passed similar laws that require voters to present a form of identification at poll places.  The passage of these identification laws followed the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida.  The states cite the compelling interest of preventing voter fraud as justification for the requirement of identification cards.

Indiana Democrats argue, and Judge Posner indicated his agreement in his opinion for the federal appeals court, that the laws impose a substantial hardship on specific groups of eligible voters.  Democrats voiced concern that voters who are low-income, elderly and those who lack a driver’s license.  Judge Posner acknowledged in his opinion that the Democrats may lose some votes because of the law.  But, he reasoned, “voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes.” 

The Indiana voter identification law provides, “[a] voter must present photo identification issued by the federal government or the state. Without the identification, the voter must use a provisional ballot to be counted only if the voter within 10 days goes to the circuit court or county election board. There, the voter must either provide the identification or sign an affidavit that he or she is indigent and cannot obtain proof of identification without paying a fee.”

The Supreme Court will now have to weigh the competing interests, loss of eligible votes versus the dilution of eligible votes through voter fraud, by deciding which standard of review to use.  The plaintiffs urge the Court to adopt a strict scrutiny standard of review while the government desires the Court to use the relaxed standard used by the appeals court.

The right to vote has been described by some as an essential human and civil right in democratic societies.  Though, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court stated, “The individual citizens has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

For more information, please see:

The New York Times – Justices Agree to Hear Case About Voter ID Laws – 25 September 2007

The New York Times – Fear but Few Facts in Debate on Voter ID’s - 24 September 2007

USA Today – No Court Consensus on Voter ID Laws – 1 January 2007

The Nation – The Right to Vote - 19 January 2006

House of Representatives Passes Bill to Help Expand Hate Crimes Coverage

In 1998, Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered and his killers apparently committed the crime because Shepard was gay.  It is nearly a decade later and Congress is attempting to add sexual orientation as a protected class of people under hate crime laws. (CNN)  In May of this year the House of Representatives voted on a bill that would allow sexual orientation a part of hate crime laws that already protect crimes motivated by race, color, or national origin.  (CNN) The bill, which would give law enforcement greater "leeway to investigate hate crimes and provide 10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions" was passed by a 237-180 vote, this vote fails to override a presidential veto.  (CNN)  The Bush administration called the bill unnecessary because local laws already address crimes motivated by prejudice of gay men and women (CNN) 

Today, the Senate held a vote for the bill, labeled S.1105, but many are crying foul. (NY Times) The reason for the public outcry is the way the bill was presented for the vote.  The Senators, including Sen. Kennedy (D-MA), "attached the hate-crime provision to a seemingly unrelated defense authorization bill, which is needed to run the Defense Department" (NY Times) Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) called the attachment to the military bill "shameful." (NY Times) Matt Barber, spokesman for Concerned Women for America (CWA), called the maneuver "underhanded" because "if he [Bush] vetoes the Defense Authorization bill because they've attached this hate crimes legislation to it, then they can accuse him of being a hypocrite and not funding the troops." (One News Now)  Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, joined in the CWA's dissent by saying the White House's position on expanding the hate crime bill had not changed but that she could not say for sure whether President Bush would veto the bill or not. (NY Times)  Senator Kennedy stood by the bill and stated the bill was "part of an effort 'to continue to march toward progress in the United States of America" and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) seconded Kennedy's sentiment by saying "there is no civil rights issue before this Congress that is more overdue."

For more information, please see:

"White House Threatens to Veto Hate-Crimes Bill" CNN May 3, 2007

"Senate Backers of 'Hate Crimes' Bill Criticized for 'Sneaky' Tactics" One News Now July 14, 2007

"Hate-Crime Provision Clears Sena te" New York Times September 27, 2007

Special Forces Soldiers Charged with the Murder of Afghan man

There have been numerous cases in the news about soldiers in Iraq being charged for the unauthorized killings of Iraqi civilians.  Recently, two Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan were charged with the murder of an Afghanistan man outside his home but the news coverage has been significantly less.  The New York Times was the primary news source to report on the trial of Green Berets, Staffel and Anderson.  The group of twelve Special Forces soldiers present at the shooting of Nawab Buntangyar are maintaining that the incident was consistent with the American rules of engagement and Buntangyar was an enemy combatant.  (International Herald Tribune) Originally Staffel and Anderson were charged in June with premeditated murder, but after an investigation by Army's Criminal Investigation the incident was found to be "justifiable homicide."  (IHT) Mark Waple, the civilian lawyer for Staffel, said that "Major General Kearney, who commands all American special operations troop in Afghanistan at the time, proceeded with the murder charges against the two soldiers anyway."  (IHT)

Last week in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, presiding officer, Colonel Kevin A. Christie inquired as to why Maj. Gen. Kearney went ahead with the charges. (NY Times)  In addition, Col. Christie focused intensely on "[the risk of] trying to fight a war in Afghanistan with aggressive measures in an 'unconventional war' versus the risk of losing the larger strategic battle for hearts and minds of Afghan civilians." (NY Times)  These concerns were evident in his questioning of Major Matthew McHale about the prospective repercussions of the soldiers shooting of Mr. Buntangyar. (NY Times) Specifically, the concern was that the police force, which the American soldiers have been trying to establish as an "independent and trustworthy" institution in Afghanistan. (NY Times) The New York Times article quoted Major McHale as conceding to Col. Christie's concerns but "[the police] were unreliable and sloppy and on the day of the shooting the police had locked their radios and keys in vehicles at home."  Bill O'Reilly commented for Fox News that for Major Kearney to go ahead with the charges after the two special forces soldiers had been cleared of wrongdoing was wrong and called on Americans to "zero in on this [issue because] the USA is fighting a brutal war against terrorists, who don't wear uniforms and delight in killing women and children."  (Fox News)  Mr. O'Reilly claims Nawab Buntangyar was a terrorist and a killer and that the killing should be justifiable. (Fox News)

For more information, please see:

"Hearing in Killing of Afghan Puts Army War Effort on Trial" New York Times September 20, 2007

"Army will Examine Special Forces Killing" International Herald Tribune September 17, 2007

"Harming Our Troops" Fox News September 20, 2007

Supreme Court To Hear Case On The Constitutionality Of Lethal Injection

     In the April 16, 2005 issue of The Lancet, a British medical journal, researchers found that a review of the United States’ lethal injection policy was warranted.  The journal examined toxicology reports of post-mortem death-row inmates to determine amount of anesthetic drugs put into their bodies upon lethal injection.  The study concluded that in 43 of the 49 executed inmates the amount of anesthetic used in the lethal injection cocktail was below the amount required during surgery.  The journal concluded that, due to flawed guidelines for delivering the lethal injection, there is a probability that the executed inmates might be “aware” during the injection process and experience suffering during the execution. 

     In 2006, the Supreme Court heard the case Hill v. McDonough that posed the procedural question: how may a death-row inmate challenge a lethal injection sentence if the inmate has exhausted all appeals?  The Court was able to decide the case without ruling on the legitimacy of the lethal injection process.  However, the trial centered on the legitimacy of the lethal injection process.  The death-row inmate argued that the lethal injection cocktail “places inmates at risk of ‘wanton and gratuitous pain’” which violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (NY Times)

     On September 25, 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to substantive examine the lethal injection method used by most states that put inmates to death.  Following the argument in Hill v. McDonough, two inmates will challenge the lethal injection process because it violates the Eighth Amendment in that it is cruel and unusual punishment.  The Court will hear the case on January 8, 2008.  While the public is unable to examine which justices voted to take the case, speculation has begun on the Court’s decision.  Some feel that the Court took the case in order to promulgate a broad rule that the lethal injection cocktail is too much of a risk of inmate pain.  Still others hypothesis that the Court accepted the case in order to cast a narrow ruling which will provide guidelines to lower judges on how to carry out executions. 

For More Information on This Topic, Please See:

Death Penalty Information Center - Medical Journal, The Lancet: Inmates Probably Conscious During Lethal Injections - 4/16/2005

New York Times - Supreme Court Hears Case Involving Lethal Injection - 4/26/2006

Chicago Tribune - Court To Consider Lethal Injection Case - 9/25/2007

Criticism of Pres. Bush's AG Nomination Focuses on Post-9/11 Cases

WASHINGTON, United States of America - Those who criticize President Bush's recent nominee for attorney general, former federal judge, Michael Mukasey, place significant emphasis on his treatment of Arab men who were arrested on suspicion of being linked with international terrorism and mistreated in the wake of the 9/11 attacks .

The New York Times reports that the White House has refused to address specific questions about Mr. Mukasey's involvement with post-9/11 cases prior to Senate hearing.

Judge Mukasey is now up for consideration by the Senate.

For more information, please see:

The New York Times - Post-9/11 Cases Fuel Criticism for Nominee - 23 September 2007

Mounting Racial Tensions Explode In Violence And Leads To Disparity In Legal Treatment Along Racial Lines

     A series of events, in September of 2006, in Jena, Louisiana sparked violence and racial tension throughout the town.  The Jena High School has a tree in its front yard.  The tree is known as, the “white tree,” because white students generally claim the tree as a place to congregate.  In 2006, a black student asked the administration if he could sit under the tree.  The administration informed the student that he could sit anywhere he wanted.  The next day, three nooses hung from the “white tree.”  Three white students were apprehended for hanging the nooses but, over the school principle’s suggested punishment of expulsion, the school superintendent suspended the guilty students for three days.  Racial tension continued to mount and exploded in violence on several occasions throughout the following months.  On December 4, 2006, a white student was beat up by six black students because the white student began taunting the black students with racial slurs that indicated his support for the nooses hung in the “white tree.”  The white student was knocked unconscious but was released from the hospital to attend a school social function the same night.  The six black students who attacked the white student were arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. 

     Disparity in the crimes-charged-with and race-of-the-accused have brought criticism on the District Attorney’s office.  In an incident prior to the December 4th event, a white student was arrested for attacking a black student and was charged with simple battery.  Responding to the critical scrutiny over the case and the high burden of proof, the District Attorney reduced the charges against the first of the six students to come to trial to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery.  The first of the six students to come to trial, Mychal Bell, is sixteen and a sophomore in high school.  Bell is being charged as an adult.  Though Bell could be released on $90,000 bail, his family was unable to produce enough money to release him from jail.  Bell spent nearly a year in jail before his trial.  Eventually, Bell was convicted on both the battery and conspiracy counts.  However, early in September of 2007, a judge threw out the conspiracy charge.  Both sides assert that they will appeal the judge’s decision.  Bell’s attorneys are asking that the battery conviction be thrown out as well and the entire case be sent to juvenile court.  The District Attorney will ask for the ruling on the conspiracy charge is overturned.  Two of the other ‘Jena 6,’ as the black students have come to be known, have had their charges dropped to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery.   

For More Information on This Subject:

Help Support The Jena 6

Chicago Tribune – Racial Demons Rear Heads – 5/20/2007

Chicago Tribune – Charge Reduced in ‘Jena 6’ Case – 6/26/2007

NPR – Case of ‘Jena Six’ Tears at Small Town’s Harmony – 9/7/2007 

US Government Compiling Personal Data of Travelers

WASHINGTON DC, United States of America - The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is collecting the personal information of unsuspecting travelers into and out of the United States and compiling it in databases in an effort to monitor the activity of potential terrorists and other criminals. 

The Washington Post reports that DHS is collecting information ranging from “retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried.”  The data is then imported in to DHS’s Automated Targeting System, which is used by border officials to monitor the activity of suspected criminals.

Critics have known about the government’s efforts to screen and collect the personal information of travelers, but now contend that the program has intensified beyond the limits established by law.  Civil liberties activists argue that the program violates the Privacy Act, “which bars the gather of data related to Americans’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, such as their choice of rading material or persons with whom they associate.”  For example, one civil liberties activist, who provided to The Washington Post the file of personal information the government kept on him, maintains that the Customs and Border Patrol recorded information on reading material, including a book on marijuana, he had in his possession while traveling.

A similar program run by the Transportation Security Administration was severely criticized by the Senate in March of 2003.  At that time, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) said, “A system that seeks out information on every air traveler or anyone who poses a possible risk to US security, and then use that information to assign a possible threat score to each one, raises some very serious privacy question.  It’s a matter of good public policy for the privacy and civil liberties implications of this program to be reported to Congress.”

The Department of Homeland Security has dismissed complaints directed at the program.  The DHS claimed that the program does not violate any laws, is transparent, and does afford effective means of redress for those people who are improperly obstructed. 

The government has claimed that they are not interested in the personal information of people that is unconnected with a violation of the law.  Russ Knocke, DHS spokeman, said, “if there is some indication based upon the behavior or an item in the traveler’s possession that leads the inspection officer to conclude there could be a possible violation of the law, it is the front-line officer’s duty to further scrutinize the traveler.”

For more information, please see:

The Washington Post – Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented – 22 September 2007

The Washington Post – US Plans to Screen All Who Enter, Leave Country – 3 November 2006

CNET News – Senate Scrutinizes Air Travel Database – 13 March 2003

CBC.ca -  ‘Big Brother’ Travel Database Restricted – 9 April  2003 [Canadian equivalent of US program]

Study Finds Iraq War is Costing $720 Million a Day

CHICAGO, Illinois – The American Friends Service Committee completed a study that found that the “money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could out fit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity.” (The Washington Post)  The cost of the war amounts to $500,000 a minute.

The estimated cost of the Iraq war is not limited to the “immediate costs of war” but also factored in “long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.”

In response to the recent study, Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute said, “If you think national security won’t be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere.  I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant.”

For more information, please see:

The Washington Post – War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says – 22 September 2007

Private Security Company Blackwater Accused of Shooting Iraqi Civilians and Faces Possible Legal Action

New sources around the globe, including CNN have reported that the employees of the privately owned Blackwater Security Company recently opened fire in Baghdad and subsequently killed at least eight Iraqis civilians and wounded nearly eleven others. (CNN)  Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the Interior Ministry in Iraq said that they would seek to prosecute any contractors from any nation that are found to have used "excessive force." (NY Sun) After the Blackwater shooting in Baghdad on Sunday he stated that "we have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over the Iraqi territory.  We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities." (NY Sun).  According to the U.S. State Department's report Blackwater guards claim they came under fire and were extremely close to a car bomb that went off during transit. (CNN)  The report claims that there were around 10 people, some dressed in what appeared to be Iraqi police uniforms that warranted them to return fire and defend themselves. (CNN).  Two Iraqi witnesses claim that no one attacked Blackwater's convoy of SUVs. (LA Times)

Following the incident and the statement by the Interior Ministry, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contacted Iraqi Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki and both came to the agreement that a formal and fair investigation would be conducted to figure out who should be punished and held responsible. (CNN)  The Iraqi government's statement that it would be revoking Blackwater's license to act in Iraq and news of possible demands for Blackwater to leave Iraq all represent what the LA Times article refers to as "Iraq's boldest step to assert itself against foreign security contractors who have long been accused of racing through Baghdad's streets and firing without restraint at anyone they see as a threat."  In the U.S. many members of Congress have also spoken out against the actions of Blackwater.  Representative Henry Waxman (D-California) said that hearings would be held soon to discuss the issue of contractors operating in Iraq due to the recent shootings. (CNN) Waxman also noted that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had held hearings back in February and find the current incident "an unfortunate demonstration of the perils of excessive reliance on private security contractors." (CNN)  During a debate between Jerry Scahill, who wrote "Blackwater:  The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" and Doug Brooks, who is president of International Peace Operation Associations (which is in the private security industry) estimated that there are as many if not more guards and workers in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers. (Democracy Now!)

When Khalaf claimed that the Interior Ministry would investigate the Blackwater employees he was ultimately claiming that they had committed a crime.  Peter W. Singer, private security companies expert and analyst for the Brookings Institution, stated "if [Khalaf is] describing this as a crime...there is a very interesting question of 'Do we turn over American citizens to an Iraqi judicial system that is inept, corrupt, and now politicized?'" (LA Times)  Iraq's national security advisor, Mo waffek Rubale continued this line of thinking by suggesting that the Blackwater incident provides a convenient time to look at changing the immunity granted to private security guards from Iraqi courts. (LA Times).  Specifically he claimed that the Coalition Provisional Authority (who gave the immunity) Order 17 should be reviewed while the incident is investigated by the U.S. and Iraq. (LA Times)  Doug Brooks was quoted in the Democracy Now! debate describing Order 17 as "essentially saying that the companies, as long as the individuals are on duty, they are actually under U.S. law.  So there's some question as to whether-what the process would be and how the Iraqis would [throw Blackwater out and hold its guards responsible]." (Democracy Now!)

For more information, please see:

"U.S. Rushes to Smooth Iraq's anger over Blackwater" - LA Times - September 18, 2007

"Iraq Battle was Self-Defense, Security firm says" - CNN - September 18, 2007

"American Firm Ordered Out of Iraq after Firefight" - The NY Sun - September 17, 2007

"Can Iraq (or Anyone) Hold Blackwater Accountable for Killing Iraqi Civilians?  A Debate on the Role of Private Contractors in Iraq" - Democracy Now! - September 18, 2007

Senate Refuses to Expand Detainee Rights

The Washington Post reports that the US Senate voted (56-43) on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 to deny detainees suspected of acts of terrorism the right to challenge their detentions in US federal courts. The bipartisan effort was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster.

For more information, please see:

The Washington Post - Senate Reject Expanding Detainee Rights - 19 September 2007

The Expanding Reach of Warrant-less Wiretapping

In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in order for the government to regulate surveillance on people in the United States.  Initially, FISA was used to gather foreign intelligence information.  In recent years, the Act has been broadened to encompass terrorist groups that are backed by foreign governments.  The Patriot Act of 2001 and FISA amendments such as the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 and the Protect America Act of 2007 have sufficiently extended governmental reach and empowered the government to apply FISA to not only foreign nations but people within the United States as well. 

Most notably, the Protect America Act of 2007 aimed to ease the “red-tape” that intelligence officials must go through in order to obtain surveillance information on terrorist suspects where one or both parties are not within the United States.  In a White House press release, President Bush maintained that, to better conform to the original intent of the drafters of FISA, intelligence officials should not have to obtain a court order before running surveillance on foreign targets in a foreign country.  Opponents to the Act feel that the Protect America Act is merely a way to increase the Executive Branch’s power to wire tap while having only minimal FISA oversight. 

In a report release on September 19, 2007, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has stated that fewer than one hundred American citizens have become surveillance targets due to what was initially heard on a wiretap.  He further urges that if any suspicious activity is revealed through the warrant-less wiretap, intelligence officers will immediately seek a warrant.  With these facts, McConnell argues that six-month Protect America Act should be extended.  Still another question may arise as to the President’s power to strip judicial oversight.  A 2006 U.S. and News World Report article attempted to reconcile FISA’s expanding role with the Steel Seizure Case.  In light of 2007’s Protect America Act, is the President acting on Congressional acquiescence?  As a broader question, does the legislature have the constitutional right to delegate powers to the Executive branch when the rights of United States citizens may be involved?

For More Information Please See:

CNN, Evan Glass and Kelli Arena - Congress Gives Bush Administration More Eavesdropping Leevay - 8/4/2007

White House Press Release - Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007 - 8/5/2007

USA Today, Richard Willing - Intelligence Chief: Scant Citizens Spied On - 9/19/2007

Center For Constitutional Rights - Myth and Facts About Warrantless Surveillance

California Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Governor Schwarzenegger Presented With The Bill

     On September 7, 2007, the California legislature passed The Religious Freedom and Civil Union Protection Act (AB 43).  This bill would define marriage in “gender-neutral terms” as a union between two people.  Furthermore, it would extend state marriage protections to include same-sex as well as heterosexual couples.  In more non-descript, broader terms, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) says that “marriage is more than just a civil contract ... it is different from domestic partners, it's just different from civil unions - it means something.”  In opposition to The Religious Freedom and Civil Union Protection Act, Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition feels that the result of the bill’s passage would be the “whole definition of family would be torn asunder.”

     The Religious Freedom and Civil Union Protection Act would make California the second state to legalize same-sex marriage (Massachusetts became the first in 2004).  However, California is the first state to pass legislation that approves same-sex marriage.  Human Rights Watch points out that same-sex couples, without governmental recognition of marriage, may be denied shared employment and health benefits, domestic violence protection, the right to raise children, inheritance rights and the right to equal tax benefits and shared policies.  In addition, health experts have found that treating a group of people as distinct from the “general body” of people creates a feeling of social isolation and victimization within the distinct group.  This recognized distinction may further negative stereotypes as well. 

     Now that the California legislature has passed The Religious Freedom and Civil Union Protection Act, the bill must go before Governor Schwarzenegger to pass or veto.  In 2005, the California legislature passed the first legislation approving of same-sex marriage.  However, the Governor vetoed the bill at that time.  With the passage of this new piece of legislation, the Governor again has the veto power.  A marked difference between the two pieces of legislation is the legislative support for the bill.  The 2007 bill acquired three more votes than the 2005 bill received.  Governor Schwarzenegger must decide by October 14, 2007 whether he will veto the bill. 

For Further Information Please See:

Davies, Haley (San Francisco Chronicle), Legislature OKs same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto 9-7-2007

Equality California, CaliforniaLegislature Again Passes Bill Giving Same-Sex Couples Choice to Marry  9-7-2007

Human Rights Watch, US: Schwarzenegger Should Sign Marriage Bill 9-10-2007

War Protests Clash – 189 Arrested

As violence continues in Iraq, conflict erupted on Saturday, Sept. 15th as tens of thousands of anti-war protesters, many Iraq veterans in military fatigues, demonstrated across from the White House and war supporters voiced their defense of the US-led war. The Washington Post reports, Capitol Police arrested 189 people, including 10 veterans of the Iraq War.

The March on Washington was spearheaded by ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). ANSWER states on their website that the purpose of their “united demonstration” was to “stop the war in Iraq; end colonial occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti; Support the Palestinian people’s right of return; stop the threats against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and North Korea; US out of the Phillippines; US out of Puerto Rico; Bring all the troops home now; Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor Offensive at Home, defend civil rights; Military recruiters out of our schools and communities.”

The group of war supporters was largely composed of Vietnam veterans and members of the conservative group, Free Republic. To explain their presence at the protest, retired Air Force pilot Lt. Col. Robert Patterson said, “I’ve seen how leftist politicians hate the military. It’s disgusting. We’re fighting a war not in Iraq but with them.” Furthermore, the war supporters wished to demonstrate to the American public that there are many who do not agree with the “vocal minority” (those not in favor of the Iraq War).

Chemical spray and physical force was used against protestors, many of whom claimed they were attempting to get arrested as a sign of resistance to the war. Protestors made attempts to climb fences and other barriers during their peaceful and dramatic “die-in.” Hundreds of people joined in the “symbolic ‘die-in,’” and bodies were strewn about the ground near the Capitol in a vivid statement against the Iraq War.

Ralph Nader, former U.S. attorney Ramsey Clark, and a number of veterans of the Iraq War spoke at the march. “You can’t believe a word the administration says,” commented Ramsey Clark in a speech on the Iraqi refugee crisis.

The recent March on Washington is the next chapter of resistance against a war that has for a number of years been protested against worldwide.

For more information, please see:
The Washington Post – Dueling Demonstrations – 16 September 2007
CNN – Peaceful Iraq War Protests Prompt 71 Arrests – 26 September 2006
CNN – Cities Jammed in Worldwide Protest of Iraq War – 16 February 2003
BBC – Worldwide Protests Mark Iraq War – 20 March 2005
ANSWER - March on Washington
ANSWER – Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace - Pictures of Anti-War Protests from Around the World

Online Sex Offender Registries could make Non-violent & Juvenile Offenders Targets for Discrimination

Last week Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for the reform of sex offender laws at the state and federal level.  Specifically focusing on juvenile offenders, HRW called the registration and residency requirements a violation of convicted sex offenders.  "In many states, registration covers everyone convicted of a sexual crime, which can range from child rape to consensual teenage sex, and regardless of their potential future threat to children."  (HRW)  Chief of Staff for state Senator George Runner (R-Lancaster), who sponsored the recently passed Jessica's Law, responded to stories of paroled sex offenders who were unable to find housing due to the pubic notification of their past crimes by saying while the registrations and public notification requirements in the law may make it harder for some to find housing he believes the safety of local residents are more important. (Assoc. Press)  Jessica's Law was written after a nine year old girl in Florida was kidnapped, raped, and murdered last year.  State Representative Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) agrees in the argument that public safety outweighs the privacy rights of the convicted sex offenders. (Lansing State Journal) Jones further distinguishes, however, that the "names of teenagers convicted of violent sexual crimes should be placed in Michigan sex offender registry regardless of their juvenile status....but his law would not apply to so-called Romeo and Juliet offenses, where juveniles are close in age and sex contact is consensual."  (Lansing State Journal).

The broad intent of the registration and public notification requirements for convicted sex offenders is to protect the public, especially children from the potential threat of previously convicted sex offenders living nearby.  Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. program for HRW, stated, "Human Rights Watch shares the public's goal of protecting children from sex abuse but current laws are ill-conceived and poorly crafted.  Protecting children requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach than politicians have been willing to support." (HRW)  Fellner goes on to point out that there are many levels of possible sex offenders.  "The public believes everyone on a sex offender registry is dangerous but what's the point of requiring registration by a teenager who exposed himself as a high-school prank or even by someone who molested a child thirty years ago?" (HRW)  This pinpoints the main issue of HRW's problem with the current registry requirements of most state and federal sex offender laws - most do not make case specific distinctions before requiring the offender to register. (HRW)  New York is one state that does classify different convicted criminals as low, moderate, or high risk but each must still register for a minimum of twenty years. (NY Crim. Justice Dept.)

"Previously, only offenders who were incarcerated, on probation or on parole after January 1, 1995, had to register and only identities of those whose crimes were committed on or after January 1, 1997, were released to the public."  (Chattanooga Times)  In 2003, the Supreme Court reviewed so-called Megan's Laws and ruled that "photos of convicted offenders may be posted on the Internet." (CNN)  CNN reported that the Supreme Court also addressed arguments from sex offenders that believed they deserved a chance to prove they were no longer dangerous before their photos and addresses were posted for the public to see on the Internet.  Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed with the majority opinion and stated "our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment...the purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender." (CNN)  For juveniles that may be unfairly lumped in with violent adult sex offenders the on-line registries may disproportionately punish them once they have completed their required sentences or counseling.  "Because registration requirements are over broad in scope and overlong in duration, there are more than 600,000 registered sex offenders in the US, including individuals convicted of non-violent crimes such as consensual sex between teenagers, prostitution, and public urination, as well as those who committed their only offenses decades ago."  (HRW) 

The on-line registries allow anyone in the public to view the names, addresses, and pictures of these individuals, therefore, essentially eliminating their sense of privacy.  HRW stated in their report that many of these non-violent and rehabilitated offenders cannot keep a job or find housing due to these registries.  Others have been harassed and had their families harassed. (HRW)  "At lease four registrants have been targeted and killed by strangers who found their names and addresses through on-line registries.  Other registrants have been driven to suicide." (HRW) Guest Columnist, Jim Hines, for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, wrote that "we needlessly invest resources tracking and labeling individuals who commit sex crimes but who should not be considered sex offenders...we must discontinue labeling as a sex offender someone who makes a very bad mistake, but who represents very little future threat." (Seattle Post-Intel.)

For more information, please see:

“Supreme Court Upholds Sex Offender Registration Laws” CNN: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060727-6.html March 5, 2003  

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/

“House 1877: Relating to Jessica Lunsford Act” http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2005&billnum=1877  

“US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good” Human Rights Watch: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/usdom16819.htm , September 12, 2007

Jim Hines, “Sex Offender Laws Require Revision” Seattle Post-Intelligencer: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/330269_sexoffemders05.html , September 4, 2007 

Kelli Gauthier “Registry of Sex Offenders Expanding” Chattanooga Times Free Press: http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/.ocal.aspx?articleid=18745&zoneid=77 , July 27, 2007

Matthew Miller, “Bill Would Expand Sex Offender Registry” Lansing State Journal: http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/NEWS01/709070335/1001/news , September 7, 2007

“Debate on Sex Offender Laws Reignited” Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsnRGHbRWm074Dmr0Mfj2b1117pQ , September 8, 2007

Autistic Medical Facilities' Use Of Physical Restraint May Increase Patient Deaths

     Autism is a brain development disorder that affects a person’s cognitive abilities as well as their ability to function in a social setting.  Over the last twenty years, scientists have made great strides in the areas of autistic symptom recognition and diagnosis.  Scientists agree that genetic mutation is what causes the disorder; however, there remain competing scientific theories as to what causes these genetic mutations.  While there is no cure for autism, experts have developed treatments in which the autistic person may manage their symptoms and improve their ability to function in society.  For treatment to be effective, it specifically needs to tailor to the individual child’s needs. 

     Throughout the country, treatment facilities for severely autistic children have been erected in order to give these children specialized treatment.  Many of these facilities employ the use of physical restraint when dealing with the autistic patients to administer sedatives, calm the child’s violent behavior towards another or prevent the child from self-inflicted injuries.  This physical restraint generally entails employees using the strength of their bodies to subdue the violent child.  These treatment facilities train their employees to restrain each autistic patient in the same way.  Because autistic children react differently to the same set of stimuli, the treatment facilities cannot predict how each autistic patient will react to the same physical restraint. 

     In 2000, a fourteen-year-old autistic boy died in a San Antonio treatment facility after two hospital workers physically restrained the boy so that he could be sedated.  The CEO of the hospital said that the employees followed standard training techniques when physically restraining a patient.  This child’s death came one month after a nine-year-old boy died after being restrained by hospital employees.  The medical examiner concluded that the child had a heart attack which was brought on by “excited delirium” while being restrained by the employees.  In 2007, a twelve-year-old boy died in a Miami hospital after being physically restrained for violent behavior.  Two employees held the boy down on his stomach while placing his hands behind his back.  Autism experts say that these physical restraint deaths are becoming more frequent because children are entering facilities that are “not prepared to deal with [the child].”  These same experts highlight the fact that at least four autistic children have died due to physical restraint while under the care of a treatment facility. 

For More Information, See the Following Articles: 

Freitag, CM,  The genetics of autistic disorders and its clinical relevance: a review of the literature - 2007

Bryson, Autism spectrum disorders: early detection, intervention, education, and psychopharmacological management - 2003

Fowler, Joanne – “Autistic Kids In Danger” – People Magazine – 08/27/07

Schreiber, Chris - Autistic Boy Dies While Being Restrained By Attendants - 2000

Three US Marine Officers are Censured and Ringleader’s Preliminary Hearing Nears End

The US Navy, in letters that were not released, publicly censured three Marine officers for their involvement in the 2005 Haditha Massacre in which 24 Iraqi noncombatants, including women and children, were killed. Public outcry criticized the US Marines for its lack of a diligent investigation of the incident, others contended members of the Marines attempted to cover up the bloody events.

Reuters reports that the Secretary of the Navy censured Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, Col. Stephen Davis and Col. Robert Sokoloski “for failing to investigate promptly the 2005 killing of 24 Iraqi civilians.” This severe disciplinary action is likely to keep the officers from receiving any further promotions. Furthermore, upon their retirement, the officers’ ranks could be cut, which would affect the pay they receive after they have left the Marines. While the officers were censured, Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the general charged with investigating the officers’ action or inaction in relation to Haditha, determined that it was not their design to cover up the killings.

Al Jazeera reports that Gen. James Conway, Marine Corps commandant, said the “actions, inactions and decision” of the censured officers “did not meet the high standards we expect of marine senior official leadership.”

While disciplinary censures are usually kept confidential, the Marines’ disclosure of the officers’ punishments reflects the interest and outcry the world expressed in these proceedings.

At the same time that the censures were announced, the preliminary hearing of the supposed ringleader of the Haditha killings, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, was drawing to a close. Wuterich is charged with the unpremeditated murder of 18 Iraqi civilians. His hearing may end as early as this Thursday.

Wuterich told Reuters, “I will bear the memory of the events of that day forever and will always mourn the unfortunate deaths of the innocent Iraqis who were killing during our response to the attack. Because families got killed that day and I can look at my family and I know I would not that to happen to them.” To justify his response in the aftermath of the roadside bomb explosion, Wuterich explained, “Based on the information I had at the time, baed on the situation, I made the best decision I could have at the time.”

In all, eight Marines were charged in connection with the Haditha killings. The charges against three of the Marines have been dismissed.

For more information, please see:

Reuters – U.S. Officers Censured, Haditha Ringleader in Court – 6 September 2007

Al Jazeera – Censure for Haditha Slayings – 6 September 2007

Reuters – Haditha Marine Regrets Dead, but Says Force Needed – 6 September 2007

Source Watch – War Crimes Against the Civilians of Iraq

The Nation – Why Haditha Matters – 5 June 2006

Impunity Watch – Soldier Stands Trial in Connection with Purported Iraqi “Massacre” – 15 June 2007

Impunity Watch – Ethics Report Indicates a Willingness of US Soldiers/Marines to not Report Illegal Actions – 22 May 2007

Canadian Safe Haven For War Criminals

     Canada’s War Crimes Program was established in 1998.  The goal of the program is to prevent Canadafrom becoming a ‘safe haven’ for war criminals fleeing from their respective countries.  The War Crimes Program handles cases from the World War II era through contemporary conflicts.  Special units from Canada’s Department of Justice, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and several other government departments form the War Crimes Program.  The program works to both prevent war criminals from gaining entrance into Canadaas well as prosecuting war criminals who have settled within the Canadian border.  Under Canadian and international law, the war crimes program has several mechanisms for dealing with potential war criminals including: prosecution in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, extradition to foreign government, revocation of citizenship, denial of access to Canada’s refugee system as well as several other prosecutorial aides.          

     As of late, Canada has been accused of being ‘safe haven’ by the international community.  Tom Quiggin, a former intelligence analyst in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police war crimes unit, attributes Canada’s ‘safe haven’ status to the “lumber, ineffective legal system.”  Quiggin states that the lagging legal system is do to a lack of concentrated resources aimed at denying entrance to and prosecuting terrorists and war criminals.  The Rwandan government maintains that five alleged leaders of the Rwandan genocide are residing in Canada.  However, only one of the five leaders is facing a deportation order from the Canadian government. 

     In early 2007, the Canadian government reported that the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were dealing with fifty-seven known war criminals.  The problem, Quiggin says, is that Canada is suspected to host nearly a thousand war criminals.  Bill Bauer, a former member of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, says that one reason Canada has gotten the label of a ‘safe haven’ for war criminals is its limited deportation of people with refugee claims.  In general, Bauer states, Canada does not have enough personnel or resources to make sure the rejected refugees leave the country after their file is processed. 

For More Information on This Subject:

Canadian Department of Justice, Canadian War Crimes Program - 5/24/07

Associated Press, Canada a Haven For Fleeing War Criminals - 9/2/07

PBS: Frontline, Is Canada A Safe Haven For Terrorists?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Provisions of the Patriot Act

The Washington Post reports that U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of New York ruled that portions of the USA Patriot Act dealing with a policy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by which they intercept communications (email and telephone) originating from private companies for the purpose of counterterrorism operations. The FBI would use confidential “national security letters” (NSLs) to compel the companies to disclose these communications.
Judge Marrero ruled that this practice contravened First Amendment rights and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The reasoning behind the ruling is that the FBI was in effect able to enforce potentially infinite “gag orders” on private businesses, and the courts were afforded an insufficient ability to evaluate the legality of the secret letters.
Judge Marrero's 103-page opinion criticized the administration and Congress for violating privacy laws. Marrero commented on the ruling, “The risk of investing the FBI with unchecked discretion to restrict such speech is that government agents, based on their own self-certification, may limit speech that does not pose a significant threat to national security or other compelling government interest.” Congress had revised the Patriot Act in 2005 in an effort to bring the measure into accord with an earlier ruling by Judge Marrero concerning the exact same topic.
The America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who filed the lawsuit, claimed that the ruling in their favor was a clear example of the “efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional.” (Anthony Romero, head of the ACLU).
The ruling did not reach the issue of whether the FBI has the authority to seize “bank records, credit reports and other financial data” if it deems that this information is connected to their counterterrorism efforts. These powers are encompassed under different statutes other than the Patriot Act.
The US government will likely appeal this controversial decision.
This is not the first judicial ruling that has challenged provisions of the Patriot Act for violating constitutional privacy rights.

For more information, please see:

The Washington Post – Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions – 7 September 2007

CNN.com – Federal Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional – 27 January 2004

ACLU – USA Patriot Act – 14 November 2003

Epic.org - USA Patriot Act – HR 3162 RDS – 24 October 2001

Senate.gov – Leahy Presses for Oversight and Openness in Patriot Act Review – 10 May 2005

Nicaragua's Complete Abortion Ban

            In 2006 the Nicaraguan legislature voted for a complete ban on abortion throughout the country.  Women and healthcare professionals who participate in an abortion are subject to criminal prosecution and up to fourteen years in prison.  While abortion has been illegal in Nicaraguafor over a century, the law created exceptions for rape, malformation of the fetus and risk to the life of the mother.  The 2006 legislation eliminated these exceptions.  Nicaraguan President Enrique Bolanos signed the law in order to “protect the right to life enshrined in the Nicaraguan constitution.” (See BBC News article).  President Bolanos signed the ban into law even though it was met with strong criticism from the United Nations and European Union.           

            Nearly a year after the ban was signed into law, physicians continue to argue that this complete ban on abortion has driven up the maternal death and infant mortality rates in Nicaragua.  Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, claims that Nicaragua’s complete ban violates international law.  Furthermore, the criminalization of abortion is in direct conflict with Nicaragua’s obligations under international law to protect a woman’s right to life, health and equality.  During a research mission, Human Rights Watch associates found that pregnant women with health problems had a “pronounced fear of seeking treatment.”  (See Human Rights Watch article). 

            Within the next two weeks the Nicaraguan Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the complete ban on abortion.  The Court will weigh the ban’s commitment to the “right to life” clause written in the Nicaraguan constitution against the medical consequences on women if the complete ban remains law.

For further information see:

Washington Post, N.C. Aizenman

BBC News

Human Rights Watch

FBI Spied on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Widow After Assassination

USA Today reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveilled the activities Coretta Scott King, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, for approximately four years following the assassination of her husband in 1968.
At the time of the surveillance, Mrs. King, who died at the age of 78 in January 2006, was a widow and a mother of four. The FBI said in documents recovered by Houston television station KHOU that it was fearful of a potential national security threat whereby Mrs. King would make attempts “to tie the anti-Vietnam movement to the civil rights movement.”
Former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Rev. Joseph Lowery, said that the FBI conducted regular surveillance on the civil rights group’s activities, and at some points, the agency employed members of the SCLC to assist in spying. Rev. Lowery, in describing the FBI’s civil-rights-era surveillance of certain organizations and individuals as “despicable and devious,” went further to state that J. Edgar Hoover (former FBI Director) “hated Martin Luther King and everything that the SCLC stood for.”
The FBI documents recovered by the Houston television station included a letter obtained by the agency written by Mrs. King to the National Peace Action Coalition in 1971, which describes the Vietnam War as having “ravaged our [US] domestic programs.” Also, the FBI documents includes a memo that demonstrates the FBI’s suspicion of Mrs. King. In the memo, the FBI provides its impressions of Mrs. King’s book on her husband, “My Life with Martin Luther King Jr.” The agent who wrote the memo stated that Mrs. King’s “selfless, magnanimous, decorous attitude is belied by … [her] actual shrewd, calculating, businesslike activities.”
There is evidence in the FBI documents that the FBI kept former President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger up to date with information dealing with the persistent surveillance of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the intense surveillance of Mrs. King that occurred after Rev. King’s assassination.
The America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) demanded on August 31st that the FBI revise its guidelines pertaining to domestic surveillance programs after news of the agency’s activities involving Mrs. King was disclosed.

For more on this topic, see:

USA TODAY – Documents Show FBI Spied on King’s Widow – 8/31/2007

Houston Chronicle – FBI Tailed MLK Jr.’s Widow Years After His Assassination – 8/30/2007

ACLU – ACLU Demands FBI Rewrite Spying Guidelines in Light of Reports of Spying on Civil Rights Leader Coretta Scott King – 8/31/2007

Tracked in America.org – Civil Rights