Impunity Watch: North America

BRIEF: ABA Calls for Nationwide Halt of Executions

WASHINGTON D.C., United States - The American Bar Association (ABA) released a report on October 29, 2007 that called for a nationwide freeze on executions.  The ABA cited problems in capital punishment that may "compromise the fairness and accuracy" death penalty cases.  Within the report, the ABA highlights inconsistent collection and preservation of DNA, misidentification of eyewitnesses, false confessions and glaring racial disparity as unaddressed flaws in the death penalty system.  The ABA takes no official stance on the legality of the death penalty and has distinguished its report from the challenges to the lethal injection process.  The ABA report's main focus is on the "irregularity" between state implementation.

For more information, please see:

CNN - ABA: Freeze Executions Nationwide - 29 October 2007

Impunity Watch - Supreme Court To Hear Case on the Constitutionality of Lethal Injection - 25 September 2007

US Falls Short on Promises to Darfur

photo available here:

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

WASHINGTON, United States – While President Bush has maintained a passionate position on what he has stated to be ongoing genocide in Sudan (the United States is the sole nation that has used the term), the Washington Post recently argued that the administration’s policies have lacked a similar zeal.

President Bush has expressed a keen interest in the plight of the Sudanese people, and according to David Rubenstein, former executive direction of the Save Darfur Coalition, “He [President Bush] had an understanding of the issue that went beyond simply responding to a briefing that had been given.  He knew more facts than I expected him to know, and he had a broader political perspective than I expected him to have.” 

President Bush has repeatedly asserted that the international community must react decisively to the continued rape, murder, and dispossession of innocents in Darfur by the Arab militant group, the Janjaweed.  Furthermore, the President Bush has previously assured the American public and the international community that he would not allow a situation similar to the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda to occur under his watch.

In a statement concerning the violence in Darfur on September 9, 2004, President Bush proclaimed that the United Stated would lead international efforts to stem the rising tide of bloodshed.  The Bush administration provided $211 million in humanitarian aid to the beleaguered nation and promised an additional $250 million. 

Additionally, in October 2006, Bush signed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (DPAA) and issued an executive order at the same time in an attempt to block “property of and prohibiting transaction with the Government of Sudan.”  The executive order dealt specifically with the country’s petroleum and petrochemical industries.  The DPAA provided that sanctions would be imposed on any “persons responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; supports measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations; and supports peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan.”

But, critics claim that the Bush administration is not doing enough, including providing military reinforcements to the insufficient African Union force and pressuring allies to do the same. 

The American people have responded strongly to the perceived inaction on the part of the Bush administration.  For example, during a rally in Washington D.C. on April 20, 2006, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, joined by Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) and George Clooney, sought to draw attention to the humanitarian crisis and continued atrocities in Sudan.  Wiesel sought to dispel the sense of indifference concerning the genocide in Sudan.  “Silence helps the killer, never the victims.  And to the eyes of the victims, the world remains indifferent to their plight.  We are here because we refuse to be silent.”

For more information, please see:

Washington Post – US Promises on Darfur Don’t Match Actions – 29 October 2007

USINFO – President Bush Signs Darfur Peace and Accountability Act – 14 October 2006

BUToday –Elie Wisel Urges US Action on Darfur – 2 May 2006

The White House – President’s Statement on Violence in Darfur, Sudan – 9 September 2004

BRIEF: Well-Known American Clothing Store Accused of Using Child Labor

LONDON, UK - Well known American clothing store, Gap, was accused by a British newspaper of using child labor to create clothing items for its store.  BBC News quoted the Observer as saying it had video evidence of a ten year old boy working in a sweat shop and making clothing for Gap.  The Observer said the boy had been sold to the shop owner by his family had been working without pay for almost four months.  Another boy of similar age said he was even beaten by the factory owner because he thought the boy wasn't working hard enough.  Gap spokesman Dan Henkle told BBC News that Gap has always stood against the use of child labor and they would investigate the purported child labor factories in the United States and Europe.  Gap has also reassured customers that they will not be selling the item, a girl's smock blouse, that the boy was filmed making.

For more information, please see:

BBC News - Gap Pulls "Child Labour" Clothing - 28 October 2007

Independent - Gap Launches Inquiry into Child Labour Claims - 28 October 2007

U.S. Department of Labor - Youth Labor Laws - 28 October 2007

BRIEF: ‘Ghost Prisoners’ Disappear After Release from CIA Secret Jails

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – At least 30 prisoners, who were purportedly released from CIA custody following President Bush’s statement on Sept. 6, 2006 that announced the temporary suspensions of activities in secret prisons around the world, cannot be accounted for.  The CIA has taken up its controversial extraordinary rendition program since Bush's temporary intervention.

Most of these ‘ghost prisoners’ were captured in Pakistan and transported to secret overseas locations maintained by the CIA for interrogation and detention purposes.

For more information, please see:

The Washington Post – From CIA Jails, Inmates Fade into Obscurity – 27 October 2007

Human Rights Watch – List of ‘Ghost Prisoners’ Possibly in CIA Custody

ABC News – CIA’s ‘Ghost Prisoners’ Spark Rights Concerns – 28 January 2005

Georgia Teenager Freed after Judge Determines Sentence is "Cruel and Unusual"

By:  Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

ATLANTA, GA - In 2003, Genarlow Wilson, was an average seventeen year old high schooler when he was charged with violating what Georgia law calls "aggravated child molestation."  An article by CNN said Wilson was convicted of such offense after engaging in consensual oral sex with another female teenager, who was fifteen, during a drug and alcohol filled New Year's Eve party.  According to CNN the Georgia law carried with it a "mandatory minimum prison term so harsh it shocked his jury and prompted an international outcry from critics that prosecutors had been overzealous and racially motivated.  Most critics had argued the purpose of the law was to put child molesters behind bars and Wilson was not a child molester.  Wilson received the minimum ten year prison term in 2005.

Ironically, the New York Times pointed out that the Georgia state legislature changed the law a year after Wilson's sentencing to a new requirement of no more than a year in prison and no registration as a sex offender for conduct such as Wilson's.  The article stated, however, that the law was not made retroactive so Wilson did not fall under the new law.  Since his sentencing many influential people have criticized the decision and put their support behind Wilson's appeal process, including former President and Georgia native, Jimmy Carter according to MSNBC.  Today's announcement is not the first time a judge has ordered Wilson's release.  MSNBC reported that in June of this year a Georgia judge ordered his release but Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker appealed arguing that the Georgia law doesn't give the judge "authority to reduce or modify the sentence of the court" and took the case to the Georgia Supreme Court.  Wilson had also been offered plea bargains but had declined due to the requirement that he plead guilty to a felony.  A CNN article quoted Wilson's attorney, B.J. Bernstein, who stood with the support of civil rights leaders and black lawmakers, who were angered by the DA's decision to appeal.

Today the Supreme Court's decision is safe from appeal.  CNN quoted a spokesman for Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker said there would be no further appeals.  In a 4-3 ruling the state Supreme Court found Wilson's sentence of a decade in prison to be cruel and unusual punishment.  Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote the Court's decision and the decision was quoted by CNN as saying "although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson's crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children....to punish Wilson as it would an adult...appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime."  To date, Wilson has been in jail for two years but is expected to be released today.  Wilson's lawyer told the New York Times that "the courts can work; the courts do work."

For more information, please see:

CNN - Court Orders Wilson Freed in Teen Sex Case - 26 October 2007

New York Times - Georgia Court Orders Man Freed in Sex Case - 26 October 2007

CNN - Last Minute Appeal in Teen Sex Case Sparks Outrage - 12 June 2007

MSNBC - Man in Teen Sex Case Should Go Free, Judge Rules 11 June 2007

Bush Administration Imposes Extensive Sanctions on Iran

Picture available here:

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

WASHINGTON, United States – The Associated Press reports that yesterday (10/25), the Bush administrations declared that it was imposing extensive sanctions against Iran in response to its alleged support of terrorism in the Middle East and its controversial weapons programs. 

Secretary of State Rice stated that the sanctions were an appropriate reaction “to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians.”  In addition to the sanctions, the Bush administration designated part of the Iranian revolutionary guard as “proliferators of weapons of mass destruction” and a terrorist organization.  This is the first instance that a country’s military force has been added to America’s list of terrorist organizations. 

Rice emphasized that the administration is still willing to pursue diplomatic methods to resolving the ongoing conflict between the countries.  But, she added, “[u]nfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, support Shia militants in Iraq and terrorist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestinian territories, and deny the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map.” 

The Guardian Unlimited reports that Iran has maintained a defiant stance in response to the new imposition of sanctions—the largest since the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis.    Iranian interior minister, Mostafa Pourmohammadi warned that aggressive moves by the United States, including a future military strike, would “lead to America’s collapse.”

The sanctions, which are the latest addition of US trade restrictions since the 2001 US ban on trade with Iran, were also imposed on three state-owned banks.  The banks Melli and Mellat are accused of proliferating weapons, and Bank Saderat has been designated “a terrorist financer” by the administration.

Global Policy warns that any sanctions against Iran, whether imposed by the US or additional sanctions by the United Nation—who imposed sanctions on the country in 2006 for failing to stop its secret uranium enrichment—may lead to the country restricting its vital oil exports, causing international prices to soar.

The New York Times reports that R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, has assured, “[w]e do not believe that conflict [with Iran] is inevitable.  This decision today supports the diplomacy and in no way, shape or form does it anticipate the use of force.”

Ali Reza Ronaghi, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Tehran, argued that the sanctions are bound to make life extremely difficult for Iranian citizens.  “These banks that are being designated are major banks that pay the monthly wages of Iranian workers, Iranian government people, and it’s not easy for Iranians to do any business with any foreign country from now on.”

Critics have argued that the sanctions will be “counter-productive”—further isolating Iran from the international community and obstructing a potential diplomatic resolution of the ongoing conflict.  “I think it is an action designed more for public consumption back in the United States,” said political analyst Mehran Kamrava.

For more information, please see:

Guardian Unlimited – Iran Warns it Would Strike Back Against Force – 26 October 2007

The New York Times – US Plays its ‘Unilateral’ Card on Iran Sanctions – 26 October 2007

Yahoo [AP] – US Announces Sanctions Against Iran – 25 October 2007

Al Jazeera – US Impose New Sanctions on Iran – 25 October 2007

United Nations – Security Council Res. 1737 – 23 December 2006

BBC – US Renews Iran Sanctions – 14 March 2001

Global Policy Forum – UN Sanctions Against Iran

BRIEF: U.N. Calls Violence Against Women During Armed Conflict 'Hideous'

UNITED NATIONS – On October 23, 2007 the U.N. Security Council met to implement a resolution, passed in 2000, that aimed to increase the prosecution of crimes against women in times of war. 

Assistant Secretary-General Rachel Mayanja condemned “impunity for perpetrators” and the “insufficient response to the needs of survivors” in her address to the Council. 

Joanne Sandler, acting executive director of U.N. Development Fund for Women, called the systematic sexual violence that occurs during and after military conflict “socially destructive.” 

The U.N. Security Council called for “concerted, robust and ongoing action” to diminish violence against women during armed conflict.  One implementation procedure suggested at the meeting was to appoint more women to “decision-making bodies dealing with peace, reconstruction and rebuilding of societies.” 

For more information, please see:
 
USA Today - U.N. Chief Decries 'Hideous' Violence Against Women - 23 October 2007

Jurist - UN Urges End to Impunity for Violence Against Women - 24 October 2007

IPS - RIGHTS: Gender Violence a Universal Norm, Says U.N. - 9 October 2007

BRIEF: Bush Policy Justifies 'Torture, Paramilitarism, Occupation and Genocide'

WASHINGTON, United States - In a recent article by Stephen Lendman, The Global Research Center attacks the Bush Administration's policy of condoning the use of torture ("enhanced interrogation") in the context of the global war on terror.  Lendman also takes issue with the use of private paramilitary groups, such as Blackwater, to evade the rule of law and "practice street violence with impunity."  Furthermore, Lendman alleges that during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, the United States "committed grievous war crime violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions and UN and Nuremberg Charters" --including mass killings, indiscriminate bombings, and targeting of infrastructure necessary for civilian survival.

For more information, please see:

Global Research - Torture, Paramilitarism, Occupation and Genocide - 25 October 2007

Impunity Watch - AG Nominee Back and Forth on Torture - 19 October 2007

Undocumented Immigrants Face Abuse at the Hands of Smugglers and U.S. Citizens

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

ARIZONA, United States – Seven human smugglers, or “coyotes,” were arrested on October 20, 2007 after sheriff’s deputies raided a house expected to house illegal immigrants.  Officials estimated that 43 undocumented immigrants were found to be housed in the raided home. 

Captain Paul Chagolla, representative for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, said, “The toilets [in the house] were filled with human waste, and buckets were dispersed throughout the house as makeshift toilets.”  Also, Chagolla suggested that there was nearly no food within the home. 

In addition to the deprivation to food and toilets, the undocumented immigrants were subject to physical torture.  Common forms of torture included assaults, threats with a gun and wrapping a plastic bag around the head of an immigrant before submerging their head in an unflushed toilet.  Some immigrants reported that the coyotes put a gun to their head and demanded money.  Unfortunately, the abuse documented in the October 20 raid is common in the business of smuggling illegal immigrants into the United States. 

After establishing themselves in the United States, undocumented immigrants still face the possibility of abuse.  Undocumented women immigrants face a high risk of domestic abuse within the United States.  The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that one in four women will fall victim to domestic violence at some point during their adulthood.  However, the Coalition suggests that the likelihood of domestic abuse is greatly increased for undocumented immigrant women.  A majority of the abusers are United States citizens who “refuse to apply for legal status for their spouses to keep them isolated.” 

Common abuse techniques used by the male abusers are accusations of infidelity, “jail-like isolation from family and friends” and sexual abuse.  These undocumented women immigrants become vulnerable to abuse because their immigration status is often tied to the discretion of their abuser.  The male U.S. citizen threatens his immigrant wife with deportation in order maintain their obedience. 

The United States has taken steps to react to the growing problems of abuse among undocumented immigrant women.  In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act that provided a caveat for battered undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens.  This caveat gave these women the right to apply for legal residency on their own rather than “depending on their husbands to petition for them.”  In 2000, Congress expanded the right to special visas to these women regardless of their relationship to their abuser. 

For more information, please see:

BOT! - Police: 'Coyotes' tortured migrants - 20 October - 2007

Tuscon Citizen - Deputies: Smugglers nabbed at torture site - 22 October 2007

USA Today - Domestic Abuse Rises Among Illegal Immigrants - 1 March 2005

Las Americas - Deportation Threat Keeps Many Battered Women Silent - 21 February 2005

Marines Face Trial for their Roles Haditha Massacre

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

CALIFORNIA, United States of America - Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, charged with dereliction of duty and neglecting to report and/or investigate the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians at the hands of US military personnel, and L/Cpl. Stephen Tatum, charged with involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault, will each face a court martial for their roles in the widely publicized Nov. 2005 massacre.  The other murder charge levied against Tatum had been previously dropped.  Tatum was one of the marines participated in the “clearing” of the nearby houses where the additional killings occurred. 

Chessani is the most senior US servicemen to face a court-martial for actions in the theater of battle since the Vietnam War.  It is alleged that numerous Iraqi civilians complained to Chessani about the apparent massacre.  Furthermore, the Haditha town council sent a letter to Chessani requesting an investigation of the incident.  Chessani did not respond to these requests with an investigation—he in fact never ordered a formal investigation because he contends the civilian deaths were the result of lawful military activities by US marines—“collateral damage.”  No complete investigation of the incident occurred until January 2006.  Chessani could be sentenced to three years in prison if he is convicted of the charges mounted against him.

The Haditha killings occurred following the explosion of a roadside bomb that caused one US military casualty.  The marines then shot five unarmed men who were riding in a taxi near the scene of the explosion.  Then, the marines went to two nearby houses and shot 19 other men, women and children.

Initially, the US military reported that all the civilian deaths had resulted from either the improvised explosive device (IED) that took the life of the US marine, L/Cpl Miguel Terrazas or the firefight that followed.

Prosecutors contend that the civilian deaths were the result of retaliatory actions by the marines. 

Charges have been dismissed for four marines, and investigators have recommended that the murder charges filed against the alleged leader of the massacre, Sgt. Frank Wuterich, be reduced to negligent homicide.

For more information, please see:

BBC – Two Marines to Face Haditha Trial – 20 October 2007

Al Jazeera – US Marines to Face Haditha Trial – 20 October 2007

Impunity Watch – Lt. General Mattis Reduces the Charges for Three Marines Implicated in Iraq Civilian Killings – 14 August 2007

Time – The Haditha Charges: Symbol of a War Gone Bad – 22 December 2006

BRIEF: Congress Fails To Overturn a Presidential Veto on Child Health Insurance Expansion

WASHINGTON D.C., United States - The House of Representatives fell thirteen votes short of overriding the President's veto of legislation that proposed to expand the reach of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  President Bush, in vetoing the legislation, stressed that the proposed expansion took the program "beyond its original purpose" of insuring low-income families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.  The proposed legislation would increase SCHIP's budget by $35 billion in order to insure approximately ten million children.  President Bush has offered a compromise where he has expressed a willingness to approve a bill that would provide insurance to 500,000 children. 

For more information, please see:

BBC - Democrats fail to beat Bush veto - 18 October 2007

The Boston Globe - House fails to override veto of SCHIP - 19 October 2007

MSNBC - House fails to override Bush child health veto - 18 October 2007

BRIEF: 24 Dead Migrants Found in Oaxaca

OAXACA, Mexico - The bodies of 24 men were found washed ashore in the Mexican state of Oaxaca after their boat capsized on the way to the United States.  Dangerous weather conditions have been cited as the cause of the boat accident.  'People-smugglers' use many such dangerous routes to gain access into the United States when trafficking illegal migrants.

The American Law Foundation argues that the immigration policy of the United States, especially with regard to Mexico, contributes to the perilous routes illegal migrants must take in order to enter the country without reducing the number of illegal entrants.  "[V]arious academic and government studies estimate that the bodies of between 2,000 and 3,000 men, women, and children have been found along the entire southwest border since 1995."

For more information, please see:

BBC - Mexico finds 24 'Migrant' Bodies - 20 October 2007

The American Law Foundation - Immigration Policy Brief - February 2007

AG Nominee Back and Forth on Torture

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

WASHINGTON, United States of America – Michael Mukasey, the Bush administration’s nominee for Attorney General, stated in his hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that a president does not have the legal authority to use torture in the interrogation of people suspected of acts of terrorism.

Mukasey, referring to Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo’s controversial 2002 memo, said, “The Bybee memo, to paraphrase a French diplomat, was worse than a sin, it was a mistake.  It was unnecessary.”  The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Chairman, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), has previously stated that many senators refused to vote for Mukasey’s predecessor, Alberto Gonzalez, because he refused to repudiate the memo.

But, in a turn around, Mukasey, on the second day of confirmation hearings, refused to directly oppose the interrogation technique known as “waterboarding” that has been used by US personnel in the questioning of terrorist suspects.  Waterboarding is an interrogation technique where a prisoner is put in a reclining position, strapped down, and a cloth is placed over their face while water is poured over the cloth “to simulate the feeling of drowning.”  Mukasey stated, “I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques.  If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”  According to the BBC, Senator John McCain stated in 2006 that waterboarding should be ‘outlawed.’

Torture was made illegal in 1994 with the passage of 18 USC § 2340A.

The 2002 memo, referred to as the ‘torture memo’ by some, defined torture very narrowly—the physical trauma must be “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.”  Its writers also argued that ratification of the 1994 torture statute may be unconstitutional because it interferes with the president’s ability to properly fulfill his duties as commander in chief.  The Justice Department “quietly rescinded” the memo in December of 2004 following strong reactions from international human rights groups.

Democratic Senators have expressed their frustration with Mukasey’s recent answers to questions concerning waterboarding.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), Leahy, and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) all expressed their dissatisfaction with Mukasey’s ‘conditional answers.’

For more information, please see:

CNN – Attorney General Nominee’s Answer on Torture Frustrates Democrats – 18 October 2007

Yahoo – Mukasey Disavows Torture Memo – 17 October 2007

BBC – Terror Law Leaves Room for Tough Questioning – 29 September 2006

The Washington Post – The Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture ‘May Be Justified” – 13 June 2004

PBS – The Torture Question

2004 ‘Torture Memo’

Title 18 – Crimes and Cirminal Procedure – Part I – Crimes – Chapter 113C – Torture
18 USC Sec. 2340A

Putin criticizes U.S. plans for Iraq and Missile Defense Systems

By Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America Desk

WASHINGTON, DC - President Vladimir Putin of Russia called the U.S. presence in Iraq "pointless" and described the situation as "they've learned to shoot there but they are not managing to bring order" according to CNN.  The article cites this recent quote as another example of Putin's numerous confrontational statements against Washington.  The New York Times reported Putin's confrontational behavior in a meeting between Condoleezza Rice and  Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week in Moscow.  The weekend apparently had a sarcastic overtone and achieved far less than the U.S. officials had hoped for.

Rice and Gates were in Moscow to discuss, among other things, missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.  BBC News cites the missile defense system is important to the U.S. objective of anticipating the missile actions of "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.  Support for the U.S. missile program is unlikely considering Putin's recent visit to Iran where he appeared more than friendly with the Iranian president.  The Telegraph stated, "if Washington had entertained even vague hopes that President Putin would press the Iranian government into abandoning its nuclear ambitions, it was to be disappointed.  Not only was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad able to portray the visit as conferring international legitimacy on his isolated regime, Mr. Putin seemed eager to offer his counterpart unconditional support..."  The New York Times stated Putin viewed the U.S.'s missile plans for Eastern Europe as a possible strain on the U.S.-Russian diplomatic relationship.

Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov asked that the United States halt its plans to create missile defense locations in Eastern Europe while the two countries continued to negotiate stated the New York Times.  In response, the New York Times article quoted Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as saying "we remain eager to be full and open partners with Russia on missile defense."  Russia has still begun threatening to leave the Treaty on Conventional armed Forces unless more NATO countries sign on to it.  BBC News says Russian defense analyst Alexander Goltz theorized that President Putin most likely preferred the talks about the U.S. military agenda because he wanted to redirect the focus away from U.S. criticism from topics such as human rights violations and suppression of democracy in Russia.

For more information; please see:

New York Times - Putin Criticizes U.S. Officials on Missile Defense - 12 October 2007

BBC News - Russia Urges U.S. Missile 'Freeze' - 12 October 2007

The Telegraph - Putin Favours Iran with Military Warning to U.S. - 18 October 2007

CNN - Putin:  U.S. in Iraq is 'Pointless' - 18 October 2007

After Threats from Turkey the Armenian Genocide Vote Might Not Happen

By Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America Desk

WASHINGTON, DC-Last week, by a 27-21 vote, the House Committee on Foreign affairs adopted a resolution that would officially acknowledge the 1915-17 killings of nearly a million and half Armenians as genocide.  The killings allegedly occurred during World War I as the Ottoman Empire was coming to an end and became what is now known as Turkey.   The bill looked ready to be endorsed by the House of Representatives this week when support for the new bill began to deteriorate.

CNN reported that the vote might even be delayed while House voters reconsider their support for the bill.  The article stated that the bill may have detrimental effects on the Iraq war and the soldiers stationed there.  BBC news reported last week, immediately after the House committee vote, that Turkish President Abdullah Gul called the decision "unacceptable" and had "no validity for Turkey."  According to Gul, Turkey has always maintained that genocide did not take place.  In a second BBC article the impact the vote could have on the United States and the Iraq war was outlined.   Turkey is afraid that the weak central government in Iraq could lead to the development of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq and further weaken the government; in addition, there has been a rise of Turkish troops being killed by Kurdish guerrillas.  The fear is that Turkey will cross the border and invade northern Iraq harming the progress America has made thus far.  CNN also points out that Turkey contains an integral air base that allows the United States to supply fuel, freight, and mine-resistant military vehicles to U.S. troops.  Harm to U.S.-Turkey diplomatic relations could threaten to close off this important supply station.

Eight former secretaries of state have signed a letter opposing the vote.  CNN said the letter was addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and "while acknowledging what happened as a 'horrible tragedy at that time [they] also stressed Turkey's geo-political importance' as an 'indispensable partner' in the fight against terrorism."  The LA Times quoted Nancy Pelosi as saying she would still push for the vote to occur but that she would not attempt to influence any other House member because the vote was one of personal conscience.  The dilemma can be summed up by Tom Lantos, the Foreign Affairs Committee's chairman in an article by BBC News.  Lantos stated, "we have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people...against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price than they are currently paying."

It should be noted that twenty other countries have passed legislation on this issue.  The LA Times also noted that many Armenian Americans, a large and important group in California, are pushing hard for Congress to adopt the bill and recognize the genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.

For more information, please see:

CNN - House Democrats Split on Armenian 'Genocide' Bill - 17 October 2007

New York Times - Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote - 17 October 2007

LA Times - Genocide Resolution's Support is Fading - 17 October 2007

BBC News - Turkey Condemns US Armenia Vote - 11 October 2007

BBC News - Armenia Row Threatens US-Turkish Ties - 11 October 2007

International Herald Tribune - Turkey Warns U.S. not to Pass Armenian Genocide Bill - 07 October 2007

Conference on the Prevention of Genocide Held in Montreal

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America Desk

MONTREAL, CANADA – McGill University’s Faculty of Law hosted a conference on the prevention of genocide from the 11-13 October.  The conference brought together historians, lawyers, diplomats and members of society in order to have a comprehensive discussion on the issue of genocide.  On October 11, the conference focused on the testimony of survivors of genocide.  The survivors came before the conference attendees and gave a first-hand account of horrors they lived through.  On October 12, the conference held a debate on the international community’s role in the prevention of genocide.  This debate led into a discussion on the “warning signs” of genocidal action that should force the United Nations into action.  The conference ended with a debate on the topic: “Imagining a World without Genocide?”

While the conference was designed to facilitate a discussion on the way in which the world may prevent genocide, much of the discussion centered on criticism of the United Nations.  Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, Jordan’s ambassador to the United States and a former delegate within the United Nations, states that the United Nations, as an organization, “lacks credibility to speak on human rights violations.”  Prince Al-Hussein said that many within the United Nations are hypocrites because they condemn violations of human rights yet there are allegations of sexual misconduct by United Nations personnel in multiple countries. 

On a procedural level, Gay McDougall, a member of the Global Rights group, stated that the ineffectiveness of the United Nations lies within the “poor communication between different branches of the United Nations.”  Furthermore, McDougall argued that there is “insufficient talk about minority rights issues” within the United Nations.  These “hurdles” prevent the United Nations from acting with deliberate speed.  McDougall asserts, “By the time mass killings begin, it’s too late for the international community to react.” 

At the conference, Gregory Stanton, the president of Genocide Watch, identified stages of action that form genocide.  First, the government begins to classify people.  Second, the government gives names or symbols to the classifications.  Third, one group or classification denies the humanity of the other group.  Fourth, an organization element creates a power in one group.  Fifth, there is a polarization where the two groups’ similarities are overshadowed by their differences.  Sixth, victims are separated and identified.  Seventh, mass killing of the identified victims begins.  Finally, the perpetrators of the genocide will begin a campaign of denial that the genocide occurred. 

Using these identifiers, speakers at the conference suggested that the areas of Iran, Iraq, Burma and Ethiopia are “ripe for genocide.”  Many conference-goers took notice that the conflict in Darfur, Sudan is“genocide in slow motion.”  In Darfur, over 200,000 people have died and two million people have been displaced from their homes during the conflict.  The United Nations has not declared the conflict in Darfur genocide. 

For more information, please see:

Teach Genocide - Eight Stages of Genocide

BBC - Forum tackles genocide prevention - 12 October 2007

The New Times - Rwanda: Conference on the Prevention of Genocide in Montreal - 10 October 2007

CBC - UN blasted at Montreal forum on genocide - 13 October 2007

Yahoo! News - Global conference on genocide opens in Montreal - 12 October 2007

BRIEF: Republicans Concerned about Healthcare Veto

RWASHINGTON DC - United States of America - The New York Times reports that GOP lawmakers are concerned about the political repercussions arising from President Bush's recent veto of a bill that called for increased funding of a national health insurance program for children.  Some Republicans have voiced their frustration with the fact that the Bush administration has been unable to offer a viable alternative to the bi-partisan enhanced children health care program. 

Republican representative John Kuhl of New York argued, "[t]he president has let the debate on health care down by not offering an alternative."

For more information, please see:

The New York Times - G.O.P. Lawmakers Voice Their Unease - 15 October 2007

Impunity Watch - President Bush Vetoes Children's Health Legislation - 3 October 2007

Noose Hung on a Columbia University Professor's Doorknob

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America Desk

NEW YORK, United States of America – A noose was found hung around a Columbia University professor’s doorknob on October 9, 2007.  Madonna Constantine, a professor of psychology and education, was the apparent target of racist symbol.  Nooses have become a widely recognized symbol of black lynchings. 

Recently, nooses have been at the forefront of racial tensions throughout the United States.  Most notably, nooses were hung from a “white only” tree outside a high school in Jena, Louisiana after an African-American student attempted to sit under the tree.  Professor Constantine stated that the noose was an “unbelievably blatant act of racism” that “reeks of cowardice.” 

Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, stated that the hanging of the noose is an “assault on African Americans” and is therefore an “assault on every one of [the members of Columbia University].”

The New York Police Department’s hate-crime task force has begun to investigate the motives of the perpetrator.  To begin their investigation, the task force began to look at disgruntled students, rival professors and people taking offense to Constantine’s written work in the area of racism. 

After serving campus officials with a subpoena, the police began to review surveillance video from Columbia University’s Teachers College building.  While there were no cameras on the specific floor where the noose was hung, police are reviewing footage from each of the building’s entrances and exits.  While the building remains accessible twenty-four hours a day, the task force has determined that the noose was placed on the door between 8 a.m. and 9:15 a.m.  Furthermore, the building is only accessible to people who have a Teacher’s College ID card or similar credentials. 

The finding of a noose is one of several incidents that has perpetuated racial and political tensions on Columbia University’s campus.  During September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a volatile speech at Columbia University in which he chastised Americans for their tolerance of homosexuality.  Only weeks later, officials found racist graffiti in a bathroom of one of the school’s buildings. 

Two days after the discovery of the noose on Professor Constantine’s doorknob, workers at a New York post office found a noose hanging from scaffold outside the building.  The post office is eight miles north of Columbia University’s campus.

For more information, please see:

The New York Times - Hate-Crime Investigation at Columbia - 10 October 2007

CNN - Police probing noose incident review Columbia surveillance video - 12 October 2007

Times Online - Black Columbia professor finds hangman's noose outside office - 10 October 2007

Democrats Endorse New Surveillance Bill and Draw Criticism from Republicans and ACLU

By Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America Desk

WASHINGTON, DC - The House Judiciary and Intelligence committee of the House of Representatives approved legislation that would require the U.S. government to get approval from a special federal court, in order to conduct certain surveillance programs in the United States to monitor communication with overseas targets.  According to the New York Times the authority would come from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) which was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACt of 1978.  The new bill was chiefly a democratic initiative and the votes in the House for this bill were drawn along party lines.  The Republican Party and the Bush administration have criticized the bill as have representatives for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) although for different reasons.  Fox News stated that the new bill would "replace the Protect America Act of 2007, the controversial FISA revision adopted by Congress in August" under great pressure by the Bush administration.

The Washington Post reported today that President Bush warned that the legislation could be a setback on the progress the U.S. government is trying to make in fighting the war on terror.  The article quoted President Bush as saying the new legislation would "limit our ability to collect this intelligence and keep us safe, staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us."  Jane Harman, a Democratic representative from California, accused the president of using scare tactics to influence Congress according to a Washington Post article.  In addition Bush said it would be very unlikely that he would sign the legislation if the bill did not pass with a provision allowing for retroactive immunity to American telecommunication companies.  Republicans said, according to the New York Times, that without the added immunity provision the telecommunication companies, who have aided the government after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, would not cooperate with U.S. intelligence agencies for fear of prosecution.  Fox News claimed that nearly forty lawsuits currently name such companies as parties for allegations of violating wiretapping laws.

The ACLU has also criticized the new legislation because it would no longer require individual warrants for surveillance acts but rather provide a type of "umbrella permission" for particular surveillance acts in the United States that are focused on communications to overseas suspected targets.  The New York Times quoted the director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, Caroline Fredrickson, as saying "it's a step in the right direction but objects to allowing the government to have blanket authority for some of the surveillance methods." 

 For more information, please see:

The Washington Post - White House Fights Democratic Changes to Surveillance Act - 11 October 2007

New York Times - House Panels Vote for More Scrutiny Over Foreign Eavesdropping - 11 October 2007

Fox News - Democrats to Unveil Wiretap Bill, Would Force Justice Dept. to Reveal Surveillance - 09 October 2007

Jurist - House Democrats Propose New Surveillance Legislation - 09 October 2007

 

 

Children's Health Care Suffering

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - According to the San Jose Mercury, a number of recent studies have found that America's children are not receiving necessary health care, "leading them toward an unhealthy adulthood."  The studies found that even children who are insured are often times receiving worse health care than adults.  Health care experts claim that reasons for America children's suffering health care coverage include, "inadequate insurance payments for pediatric treatment and the health system's failure to focus on children."

These studies come in the wake of President Bush's recent veto of the proposed expansion of the nation's health care program passed by both the House and the Senate.  The program provides for children of low-income families.

For more information, please see:

San Jose Mercury News - Children's Health Care Falls Short -11 October 2007

Impunity Watch - President Bush Vetoes Children's Health Legislation - 3 October 2007

Impunity Watch - Senate Passes Disputed Children's Health Bill - Overcome Veto - 3 August 2007

US House Committee Passes Resolution Recognizing 1915 Armenian Genocide

Picture available here

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

WASHINGTON DC, United States of America - In the face of staunch resistance by both the White House and Turkey, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a non-binding genocide bill (27 votes to 21) that recognized the 1915 massacre of upwards of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks.  The Foreign Affairs Committee vote is an indication that the entire House of Representatives and the Senate may now address the issue.

President Bush argued against the passage of the bill, arguing that it “would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror.”  The Bush Administration is concerned that the vote would provide a serious disincentive for the Turkish leadership to continue their military support of a domestically unpopular occupation of Iraq.  Turkey has experienced the second highest amount of casualties during the occupation of Iraq—following only the United States.

The House bill has been described as “indigestible” and invalid by the Turkish leadership.  The United States and Turkey participate in a number of ongoing joint projects, including the reconstruction of Iraq.  Eighty percent of the logistical materials necessary for the US occupation efforts are transported through Turkey and 60 percent of these materials are produced inside Turkey. 

In addition, there is serious concern that Turkey’s desire to enter the European Union may be impeded by accusations of genocide.  Furthermore, with the continued strain between Turkey and the Kurds located inside northern Iraq, there is serious concern that this vote will further complicate Turkey’s assistance to the conflict in Iraq.  “Adding these genocide allegations on top of the current bad situation would be like adding insult injury.  It would make things more complicated.  This is not a threat.  It would put the government in an awkward situation.”

The Turkish President, Abdullah Gul, described the House non-binding resolution as “domestic political games” designed to appease lawmakers’ vocal Armenian constituencies.  Mr. Gul claimed that US lawmakers had “closed their ears to calls to be reasonable and once again sought to sacrifice big problems for small domestic political games.” 

Turkey does not accept the genocide label for what they describe as civil strife beginning in 1915.  They argue that approximately 300,000 Armenians and just as many Turks died during this time when Armenians began an independence movement with the assistance of Russian troops.

Historians assert that between 1915-23, approximately 1 million Armenians residing in what is now eastern Turkey were killed or deported by way of death marches organized by Turkish soldiers.

For more information, please see:

BBC – Turkey Condemns US Armenia Vote – 11 October 2007

Today’s Zaman – US Armenian Resolution ‘Indigestible’ to Turkey – 10 October 2007

The New York Times – House Panel Raises Furor on Armenian Genocide – 10 October 2007

BBC – Turkey’s Armenian Dilemma – 27 February 2007

US House of Representatives' Armenian Genocide Resolution
Download 11_10_08_armenia.pdf

Court will Not Hear Torture Appeal from German Citizen

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

WASHINGTON DC, United States of America - On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld an appeals court decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a German citizen of Lebanese descent.  In refusing to hear the case, the Court sustained the Bush administration's contention that a decision by the court would likely intrude on the executive’s state secrets privilege.  Furthermore, the revelation of classified material could jeopardize the nation’s interest in protecting American’s security.

Khaled el-Masri was apprehended while vacationing in Macedonia.  He was secretly transported to Afghanistan by the United States and detained in a secret prison for five months.  Following his detainment, el-Masri was transported to Albania and then set free.  El-Masri was apparently mistaken for a person suspected of acts of terrorism with a similar name.

In addition to El-Masri's secret transport, detention and subsequent torture, The New Yorker reported in 2005 that US officials apprehended Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer, at JFK Airport as he returned from vacation.  Arar was detained as a result of his name being on the US Watch List of people suspected of acts or association with terrorism.  Arar was held for thirteen days.  He was questioned while restrained in handcuffs and leg irons, and was eventually transported to Amman, Jordan by “the Special Removal Unit.”  After landing in Jordan, Arar was driven to Syria, a country where the brutality of police forces is well known.  While in Syria, Arar was seriously beaten and then released a year later without any formal charges being filed against him.

The United State's extraordinary rendition policy has been widely criticized as violating international human rights law.  The Bush administration maintains that the extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects--transporting them secretly from country to country for interrogation--is legal and denies that torture is used in the interrogation of those who are secretly transported and detained in third countries.  President Bush has repeatedly assured the world that "torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture."  Bush recently repeated this assurance even while the press released secret reports that seemed to encourage the use of controversial methods of interrogation (including sleep deprivation, severe physical/psychological abuse, frigid temperatures and simulated drowning).

In the most recent case, the US Supreme Court did not provide any reasoning for why it dismissed the suit—simply demonstrating support for the decision of the appeals court. 

German officials had previously attempted to extradite 13 CIA agents suspected of torturing el-Masri.

For more information, please see:

The New York Times - Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Torture Appeal - 9 October 2007

VOA News - Top US Court Dismisses Extraordinary Rendition Case - 9 October 2007

Washington Post – Canadian Will Remain on US Watch List – 23 January 2007

The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture - 14 February 2005

CNN – US Watch List has ‘Taken on Life of its Own,’ FBI Says – 20 November 2002

Impunity Watch – Bush Administration May Have Secretly Been Endorsing Torture – 4 October 2007

Provisions of the Patriot Act Held Unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment Grounds

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OREGON, United States of America – On September 26, 2007, a United States District Court judge ruled that two provisions of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional.  Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim attorney from Oregon, brought the case into federal court.  After the train bombings in Madrid, the FBI attempted to link a fingerprint taken from a bomb detonator to Mayfield.  The FBI used the Patriot Act’s powers to search Mayfield’s house and law office, copy his computer files, tape his telephone conversations and place surveillance bugs in his office.  The FBI was able to do these things because they obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  After incarcerating Mayfield for two weeks, the government admitted that it had misread the fingerprint data and falsely accused Mayfield of the crime.  In an initial suit, the government settled with Mayfield for two million dollars.  Uniquely, the government agreed, as a stipulation of the settlement, that Mayfield reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the Patriot Act in a different proceeding.  September 26th’s ruling is the outcome of this second suit.  The District Court judge held that the provisions of the Patriot Act in question “permit the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”  Furthermore, the judge found that these provisions of the Patriot Act are in contrast with the Fourth Amendment.  She compared the government’s dismissal request as tantamount to asking her to “amend the Bill of Rights.”

Earlier in September, a New York federal judge struck down an FBI “national security letter” demanding customer phone and computer records from a specific internet service provider.  The judge held that the FBI must justify these types of demands to a court before forcing the provider to comply. 

The government has promised a quick appeal in order to review the September 26 holding.

For more information, please see:

USA Today - 2 Patriot Act Provisions Rule Unlawful - 26 September, 2007

Washington Post - Patriot Act Provisions Voided - 26 September, 2007

New York Times - Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to be Illegal - 26 September, 2007

Iraqi Investigation into Blackwater Finds no Self Defense

By Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

BAGHDAD, Iraq- Sunday, American and Iraqi top officials met to discuss and plan how to better protect Iraqi civilians from privately owned security companies, such as Blackwater, while they escort top diplomatic officials in Iraq.  Time magazine online reported that the joint commission should release its recommendations to Baghdad and Washington officials soon.  Sunday the Iraqi government, according to the New York Times, announced that their investigation had found Blackwater to have opened fire in the Baghdad city square and were not acting in self defense.  The American government has not yet concluded its own investigation and urges Americans to not be too hasty in drawing its conclusions until all of the information has been gathered and every witness has been interviewed. 

Yesterday the New York Times quoted spokesman for the Prime Minister, Ali al-Dabbagh, as saying their investigation had been concluded and with the support of eye witness accounts they had unofficially stated that the evidence did not support a claim of self defense on the part of Blackwater.  In addition the Iraqi government is calling for the private soldiers to be tried in court and for victims to be able to recover compensation.  One eye witness account has come from a traffic policeman who was apparently directing traffic in the square on the day of the shooting nearly three weeks ago.  The policeman was quoted as saying "when he ran to help a man and his mother, who were among those first shot, the Blackwater guards began shooting toward him and another policeman who was also trying to help victims." (NY Times)

The American government has agreed to cooperate with the Iraqi government but they are not yet in agreement with the conclusions of the Iraqi investigation.  Blackwater and the State Department have consistently suggested that the private company's guards had acted under self defense and were within their rights to return fire because their convoy had been under hostile fire.  The Iraqi government disputes this claim and the Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qader Mohammed Assim, who claimed there was no attack on the Blackwater convoy and that the private security company simply opened fire in all directions, firing indiscriminately.  The New York Times suggested that this may be accurate when the reference the file containing reports from the investigation thus far as showing bullets reaching bystanders who "were as far as 200 feet away and nearly on the opposite side of the square."  Again, the U.S. investigation has not concluded its investigation into the matter.

For more information, please see:

New York Times - Blackwater Shootings 'Deliberate Murder', Iraq Says - 8 October 2007

The Nation - Blackwater: Hired Guns, Above the Law - 21 September 2007

Time - U.S. - Iraq Group Meets on Blackwater - 8 October 2007

New York Times - State Dept. Plans Tighter Control of Security Firm - 5 October 2007

Growing Racism Against Hmong-Americans

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WISCONSIN, United States of America – A Wisconsin hunter was convicted of second-degree intentional homicide the murder of a 30-year-old Hmong man.  James Nichols attacked Cha Vang after the two men crossed paths while hunting in northern Wisconsin in January of 2006.  The prosecutor in the Nichols case asserted that Nichols acted on an “ugly trait of prejudice” when he shot and stabbed Vang and then attempted to hide his body.  While Nichols maintained that he acted in self-defense but inconsistencies in his statements to police and testimony from a weapon’s expert led to the jury’s conviction.  The jury’s finding of second-degree murder disappointed many in the Hmong community.  While a conviction of first-degree murder would carry a possibility of life imprisonment, Nichols faces a maximum of sixty years in prison under the second-degree count.  Tou Ger Xiong, a spokesman for the Coalition for Community Relations in St. Paul, Minnesota, felt that the jury’s decision sent a message that “someone can shoot a Hmong hunter” and avoid the maximum sentence. 

Relations between the predominately Caucasian hunting community in northern Wisconsin and Hmong-Americans have been strained since 2004 when a Hmong-American hunter shot and killed six men and wounded two others.  The controversy began when the Hmong-American hunter was caught trespassing on the property of the six victims.  Chai Vang, the Hmong-American hunter, unrelated to the previously mentioned Cha Vang, claimed that the victims surrounded him and began to call him racial slurs.  Before this incident, white hunters had complained that Hmong-Americans did not “understand the concept of private property.” 

Dr. Jeremy Hein, associate professor of sociology at University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, conducted an analysis of discrimination against Hmong-Americans.  Hein’s analysis, paralleling the work of a University of Florida professor, identified five different types of “unequal treatment” in face-to-face situations: avoidance, rejection, verbal harassment, physical harassment and police mistreatment.  Dr. Hein found that almost all subjects within his survey experience one of the five treatments as a common occurrence, verbal harassment being the most frequent.  Most interestingly, Dr. Hein’s study identifies parallels between the mistreatment of Hmong-Americans in today society and the mistreatment of African-Americans in past generations. 

For more information, please see:

USA Today - Jury Convicts Wisconsin Hunter Who Shot Hmong Man - 6 October, 2007

CBS News - Deer Hunter Charged With Murder - 29 November, 2004

University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire - Research Studies Discrimination Against Hmong-Americans - 3 January, 2001

Private Security Company Blackwater USA subject to US Law

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

WASHINGTON DC, United States of America – Following the highly publicized killing of as many as 17 Iraqi civilians by the private security company (PSC), Blackwater USA, the Bush Administration has indicated that it is willing to comply with the requests of the world community by imposing enhanced oversight of contractors in Iraq.  The FBI is currently in Baghdad, Iraq conducting an investigation of Blackwater’s role in the September 16th firefight.

Reuters reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “ordered the implementation of three steps to bolster the accountrability of private security firms in Iraq, including the Blackwater USA.”  The enhanced oversight measures include State Department special agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security overseeing Blackwater’s “protective details.”  The State Department agents now will be provided a more penetrating ability to review incidents involving PSC’s.  Additionally, the State Department intends to install video cameras in Blackwater’s vehicles and record all radio communications between Blackwater and military/civilian agencies to closely monitor all of the company’s activities in Iraq.

CNN reports that the US House passed a bill last Thursday (Oct. 4th, 2007) in reaction to the recent Blackwater incident, which subjects PSC’s to US jurisdiction for their activities overseas.  Senate Democrats have indicated that they too will formulate legislation that will make PSC’s more accountable to the rule of law for their illegal actions overseas.  Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), commenting on the current status of PSC, “There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity for tens of thousands of individuals working in countries” for the United States Armed Forces.  The White Hourse responded to the legislation by arguing that it would have “unintended and intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities and operations.”

By way of an order signed in 2004 by the former US occupation governor, L. Paul Bremer, all US contractors had previously enjoyed immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts.

Blackwater USA has been involved in a number of other incidents where the killing of Iraqi innocents has taken place.  Accounts of the Sept. 16 incident vary depending on the source, but Iraqi government officials and eyewitness civilians allege that Blackwater “gunmen” began firing their weapons without provocation and with no attempt to distinguish enemy targets from civilians.  Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater USA and a former Navy SEAL, asserted while speaking before the House’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that “There has been a rush to judgment based on inaccurate information, and many public reports have wrongly pronounced Blackwater’s guilt for the deaths of varying numbers of civilians.” 

The US government has used Blackwater as a PSC since 2001.  The company has received contracts totaling over a billion dollars for its transportation and protection capabilities.  Blackwater has developed a reputation for firing first in situations requiring great restraint.  There have been approximately “195 shooting incidents involving Blackwater in Iraq from the start of 2005 until Sept. 12 of this year, an average of 1.4 per week.”

For more information, please see:

The New York Times – State Dept. Plans Tighter Control of Security Firm – 6 October 2007

CNN [AP] – House OKs Making Private Security in Iraq Subject to US Prosecution – 5 October 2007

CNN – Rice Orders More Oversight of Contractors in Iraq – 5 October 2007

Reuters – US Contractor Blackwater Defends Actions in Iraq – 2 October 2007

Reuters – Blackwater Usually Fired First in Iraq:  Lawmaker – 1 October 2007

Real Clear Politics – Private Security Contractors and the American Tradition – 28 September 2007

Bush Administration may have Secretly Been Endorsing Torture

By Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, DC, United States of America- Since the Bush administration declared their "war on terror" many have questions about what kind of tactics have been used to fight this war.  The media has widely publicized the incidents at Abu-Ghraib and most recently, in 2006, Congress has sought to clarify that the Geneva Conventions apply to Al Qaeda members.  Last year, according to the New York Times, Congress tried to limit the types of interrogation tactics and President Bush acknowledged the "secret" C.I.A. prisons in other countries and agreed to end such tactics as "water-boarding."  Yesterday, however, the New York Times ran an article stating the Bush administration and the Justice Department have been continuing to support torturous methods of interrogating terrorist suspects in an undercover way.  Specifically, the article states that legal memorandum issuing opinions on interrogation techniques have been confidentially signed by members of the Justice Department. 

One such memorandum was authorized in 2004 by then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and signed by Steven G. Bradbury who heads the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.  The legal opinion was signed despite objections of previous deputy general James B. Cornly and told the rest of the colleagues they would "be ashamed" when the news went public and the White House is over reaching its legal boundaries.  The New York Times stated that the opinion "provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.  CNN quoted White House press secretary Dana Perino as saying none of the classified memos from 2005 changed the White House's original and public memo from 2004 that showed its rejection of torture as a means of interrogating prisoners.   The New York Times, however, claims that in July of this year Bush signed a new executive order that allowed for "enhanced interrogation techniques" but any further details are confidential. 

Douglas W. Kmiec was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel for President Reagan and President Bush Sr. and opined that "the intense pressures of the campaign against terrorism have warped the office's proper role [into] an advocate for the president's policies." (NY Times) While nearly two dozen associates have been interviewed over the last three months, anonymously, at least one has been quoted as saying Alberto Gonzalez usually caved under the pressure by Vice President Cheney and his legal counsel, David Addington, who advertised their policies as protecting Americans form terrorists.  Tony Fratto, White House spokesman, says he "won't comment on any legal opinion relating to interrogations but that the White House has gone to great lengths to keep interrogation practices with U.S. law." (NY Times)

For more information, please see:

New York Times - Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations - 3 October 2007

New York Times - C.I.A. Tells of Bush's Directive on the Handling of Detainees - 15 November 2006

CNN - Debate rages over secret Justice memo on torture - 4 October 2007

Human Rights Watch - U.S.:  Congress Should Enact New Anti-Torture Bill - 6 March 2007

LA Times - Do we use torture? - 18 June 2007

Harsh Interrogation Methods Have Been Secretly Supported by Bush Administration

WASHINGTON, DC - The New York Times is reporting that, since the Justice Departments move to publicly declare harsh interrogation practices as "abhorrent" in 2004, the Bush administration has been secretly asserting its opinions in support of the "harshest interrogation techniques ever used by C.I.A."  In one instance, after the arrival of Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez, the New York Times asserts that a secret opinion was issued stating the U.S. interrogation tactics did not violate the "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" standard outlined by Congress in 2006.

For more information, please see:

"Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations" NY Times 3 October, 2007

President Bush Vetoes Children's Health Legislation

WASHINGTON, DC, United States of America - On October 3, 2007, President Bush vetoed the Children's Health Insurance Program.  The President stated that he believes in "private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."  Congressional supporters of the bill say they will attempt to override the veto.  The bill was passed in Senate with enough votes to override the veto; however, the bill failed to pass in the House with enough votes to override the President's veto.  The Congressional vote to override the veto is expected in the coming weeks.

For More Information, Please See:

Yahoo! News - Child health veto will be election issue - 3 October, 2007

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Hamdan Appeal

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, DC, United States of America- On October 1, 2007, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan.  Hamdan requested that his case be coupled with two other Guantanamo Bay prisoner cases that are expected to be heard in December of 2007.  These prisoners are challenging a law that strips the prisoners of the right to have a federal judge to review their detention at the United States military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Hamdan’s appeal leaves Hamdan with the possibility of facing a military tribunal for his alleged role as driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.

In 2006, Hamdan, an “unlawful enemy combatant” held at Guantanamo Bay, challenged President Bush’s establishment of the first military commission.  In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that the first military commission exceeded the President’s expressed authority under the Constitution.  Furthermore, the Court held that the military commissions “violated U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions” (Human Rights First).  The Supreme Court ruling reduced Hamdan to an “enemy combatant” and forced Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act in late 2006. 

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorized the President to set up military commissions to prosecute enemy combatants who take part in hostilities against the United States.  The Act defines an “alien unlawful enemy combatant” as a person who “engages in hostilities or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities” against the United States (Department of Defense).  In addition, a person may fit the definition if the Combatant Status Review Tribunal determines that this person is an unlawful enemy combatant (Department of Defense).  The Military Commissions Act has drawn criticism because it denies the affected detainees a trial in civilian courts.  Military tribunals, set up under the Military Commissions Act, admit hearsay evidence during trials while civilian courts do not accept hearsay evidence. 

There is some speculation that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Hamdan’s appeal is due to a pending ruling in a United States appeals court.

For more information, please see: 

Yahoo! News - U.S. Top Court Won't Hear Guantanamo Prisoner's Case - 1 October 2007

Human Rights First - The Case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan - Unspecified Date

Trial Watch - Salim Ahmed Hamdan - 1 October 2007

United States Department of Defense - Military Commissions Act - 8 February 2007

New Guatemalan Act Attempts to Define "Family"

By Andrew Benfield
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America   

GUATEMALA - During the first week of October, Guatemalan legislators will vote on the “Integral Protection for Marriage and Family Act.”  The Act is designed to form a governmental definition of the word “family.”  This new definition would exclude same-sex couples as well as single parents.  Furthermore, the proposed act casts doubt on the “legal status” of children born under “reproductive technologies.” (Human Rights Watch).  The Act threatens to strip single-parent families of health services that the Guatemalan government currently provides.  Lately, the Act has drawn criticism because it appears to contradict Guatemala’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was held in 1989 in order to explicitly state certain protections to which people under the age of eighteen were entitled.  The Convention promulgated four principles that would bind each ratifying country: “non-discrimination; devotion to the best interest of the child; protection from harmful influences, abuses and exploitations; and to participate fully in family, culture and social life.” (UN Rights of the Child).  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a United Nations treaty designed to insure basic human rights in the participating countries. 

If Guatemala’s “Integral Protection for Marriage and Family Act” were to pass, a large portion of the Guatemalan population would be affected in a detrimental way.  Human Rights Watch estimates that nearly forty percent of Guatemalan families are non-nuclear.  Because the proposed Act will not recognize these families, socially nor economically, they will no longer benefit from governmental aid.  The Guatemalan legislature must decide whether a governmental definition of “family” will secure Guatemalan human rights without destroying its commitments to Guatemalan children and adults.

For More Information, Please See:

UNICEF - Convention on the Rights of the Child

Human Rights Watch - Guatemala: Reject Bill Threatening Families - 1 October 2007

Office of The High Commissioner for Human Rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child - 20 November 1989

Office of the United Nations High Comm