Impunity Watch: North America

BRIEF: Supreme Court Determines Lethal Injection not Cruel and Unusual Punishment

WASHINGTON, United States – Today, the Supreme Court concluded that Kentucky’s use of lethal of injection to execute convicted criminals is constitutional—rejecting the challenges of two inmates currently on death row.   The 7-2 vote not only allows Kentucky to continue with executions using this method, but will also open the door for other states to follow suit.

Chief Justice Roberts, arguing for the majority, said, “Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available.  If administered as intended, that procedure will result in a painless death.”

The Kentucky death row inmates contended that lethal injection results in “excruciating pain,” that the drug used to knock prisoners unconscious wears off too quickly, and that the drug used to paralyze the death row inmate “prevents the condemned person from speaking out and expressing awareness of the pain.” 

Lethal injection is currently used by approximately 35 states as the method of choice for executions.

For more information, please see:

CNN – High Court Upholds Lethal Injection Method – 16 April 2007

The New York Times – Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution – 17 April 2008

Impunity Watch – Supreme Court to Hear Case on the Constitutionality of Lethal Injection – 25 September 2007

Filipino Legislators Ask Canada to Help Stop Human Rights Abuses

By Gabrielle Meury
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada- Three Filipino opposition critics in the Philippine Congress are set to report before the Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights. Satur Ocampo, Crispin Beltran and Luz Ilagan are asking for a review of Canadian aid to the Philippine government to find out if funds may have been used in any way in the commission of human rights violations against civilians by state security forces and agents. They are urging the Canadian government to base future aid on the improvement of the human rights situation. Currently, Canada exports military goods to the Philippines, provides military and police training, and has investments in mining. “Our main objective is to bring the issue of the continuing political repression and impunity for the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances to Canadian parliamentarians, Fil-Canadians communities and friends," said Ocampo.

This meeting is a response to human rights violations attributed to the military. There are over 900 documented cases of extrajudicial killings under the present government. There are 180 documented cases of enforced disappearances of human rights activists. A 2007 report conducted by the UN revealed the military’s alleged involvement in most of the killings and disappearances of militants and activists. Despite this report, the Arroyo government continues to deny responsibility and has not brought a single perpetrator to justice.

The legislators hope Canada, a country with a precedent of suspending aid to Filipino dictatorships, will join the international protestors opposing the human rights abuses. "Canada has earned international respect for promoting peace and human rights," said Beltran. "It should distance itself militarily from any foreign government that violates human rights with such blatant impunity."

For more information, please see:

Canadian News Wire - Filipino legislators ask Canada to help end human rights abuses - 14 April 2008

Inquirer - 3 Solons in Human Rights Mission to Canada - 10 April 2008

Philippine Reporter - Human Rights and Aid - 2 April 2008

BRIEF: A Third Guantanamo Detainee Vows to Boycott Tribunal

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - It began with two men.  First, a Saudi and a Yemeni man announced to U.S. tribunals announced they would not cooperate with the proceedings facing them in Guantanamo Bay.  A third man, 47 year old Ibrahim al-Qosi, announced Saturday that he too would boycott the U.S. War Crimes tribunal he believes to be unjust and unlawful.  Al-Qosi was detained in 2004 on charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorism.  Al-Qosi, according to The Times, told the presiding judge Air Force Lt. Col. Nancy Paul, "I leave in your hands and its load for you to do whatever you wish."

Ethical issues have arisen concerning the responsibility of the detainees' defense attorneys.  Military judges in Guantanamo have told the defense attorneys that they must continue with their defenses even if their clients want to boycott.  Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, one of the defense attorneys, however, said he "almost certainly will file a challenge against the order that he defend his client in any case."  Defense attorneys who do not represent their client's wishes could face sanctions from their home state bar associations.

David Glazier, professor of law at Loyola Law School, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "without a credible defense effort, any convictions will simply fail to stand up to scrutiny in the court of world public opinion."  Al-Qosi also spoke of international public opinion when he stated to the tribunal, "after the collapse of the towers, after the collapse of the Pentagon, all these false masks fell away and your wrongs were exposed...the whole world has a headache from your hypocrisy."

For more information, please see:

The China Posts - More Guantanamo Prisoners Expected to Snub U.S. Tribunals - 14 April 2008

All Headline News - Guantanamo Prisoner to Boycott His Trial - 12 April 2008

Food Crisis in Haiti Leads to Unrest

By Myriam Clerge
Impunity Watch Senior Article Editor

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Yesterday, Haitian Senators voted to oust Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis in hopes of restoring calm after a week of rioting over surging food prices. Alexis, a supporter of Haitian President Rene Preval, was elected in 2006 as an effort to reunite the fractious Caribbean nation. Opposition senators claim the Prime minister was voted out because he failed to increase food production and declare a departure date for UN forces.

UN peacekeepers have been stationed in Haiti since former President Jean Bertrand Aristide was ousted in 2004. On Tuesday, protestors stormed the presidential palace, looted the streets and by Thursday five people were dead. One UN peacekeeper was killed in the capital. Witnesses claim he was ordered out of his car by unknown gunmen and executed. Three other peacekeepers were injured in a separate incident according to reports.

The remaining 1000 peacekeeping unit in the country are now patrolling the streets of the capital, many of which are impassable. The palace itself it protected by barb wires and several armed UN peacekeepers. In a national address, Preval said “Poze”; ordering the protestors to “cool it” in Creole.

However, Preval’s appeal is falling on deaf ears. Unable to afford rice, beans and cooking oil – the staple- the people are hungry and frustrated with the government and the economy. At least 80 percent of the population earns only $2 a day and very few have full time jobs. Protestors demand a tax cut but Preval reiterated that he will neither cut nor reduce taxes, “the situation is difficult everywhere around the world”.

The World Bank announced that Haiti’s situation highlights the need for action by the international community. Asian countries have been struggling to cope with the price of rice, which has risen by as much as 70 percent according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Countries, like Haiti, Nigeria and the Philippines, who rely on importing rice find themselves in an unfortunate situation. As prices and demand are expected to keep rising, governments are negotiating with other countries to secure import.

After meeting with food importers yesterday, Preval announced the drop of rice prices from $51 for a 50lb bag to $43, a 15.7 percent reduction. However, many feel his proposal is “too little too late”.

The people are starving and until there is immediate action, demonstration and protest are expected to continue. The expression “grangou klorox” or “eating bleach” has become a common Haitian term to express the burning feeling in their stomach from hunger pain.

For more information please see:

BBC – Haitian Senators Vote to Fire PM - 12 April 2008

Reuters- Haiti Food Crisis Shows Need for Action - 12 April 2008

Reuters- Haiti’s Government Falls After Food Riots - 12 April 2008

Yahoo News (AP)- Haiti Prime Minister Forced to Step Down - 12 April 2008

Reuters- Uneasy Calm in Haiti after Food Price Protest - 9 April 2008

Guantanamo Defendant Boycotts Trial

By Gabrielle Meury
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba- Ahmed al-Darbi, a relative of a September 11 hijacker, denounced the United States' effort to prosecute Guantanamo prisoners, stating that they are “crime[s] against humanity.” Al-Darbi told a military judge at a pretrial hearing that he does not want a lawyer and does not plan to attend his trial. He stated, “History will record these trials as a scandal.”

Al-Darbi is charged with conspiring to attack civilians, and providing material support to terrorism for allegedly plotting to attack a ship in the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Yemen as a member of al-Qaida. Al-Darbi, who has been held at Guantanamo for six years, articulated his disdain for the tribunals, "I believe there is no international court or local court in the United States that treats detainees or accused people the same way we are treated here." He made clear that he would not be returning for future sessions and did not enter a plea.   

Al-Darbi’s trial is expected to include allegations that he was abused while in U.S. custody. Al-Darbi has said he was interrogated in Afghanistan by a counterintelligence specialist who was acquitted of charges of maltreatment and assault in a court-martial. Al-Darbi alleged that he was beaten and hung from handcuffs during extended interrogations.

While Al-Darbi is one of seven detainees at Guantanamo Bay facing  the military tribunal at the U.S. naval base, he is not the first detainee to boycott his own trial. Mohammed Jawad, a 23 year old Afghan who had to be dragged from his cell for his arraignment on March 12, said that he would boycott proceedings he considered illegitimate.

Al-Darbi has never been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant, a crucial step before the tribunal can claim jurisdiction.

For more information, please see:

Associated Press - Saudi Snubs Gitmo War Crimes Court - 9 April 2008

United Press International - Gitmo detainee decries hearing - 9 April 2008

Los Angeles Times - Guantanamo Defendant Calls Trial a “Sham” - 10 April 2008

Syracuse Professor Lends Support for House Passage of Child Soldier Act

By Jacob Leon Beier
Impunity Watch Editor-in-Chief

WASHINGTON, United States of America – In testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Professor David M. Crane of the Syracuse University College of Law provided his expert opinion on the necessity for the passage of the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007.

The Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007, sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D, IL) was successfully passed by the US Senate on December 19, 2007. The Act “amends the federal criminal code to impose a fine and/or 20-year prison term for recruiting, enlisting or conscripting a person under 15 years of age into an armed force or group.”  Additionally, the Act requires a life sentence if death results from the recruitment of child soldiers, and it expands jurisdiction for prosecuting US nationals and aliens involved in the enlisting of child soldiers.

During his April 8, 2008 testimony, Professor Crane emphasized the increasing use of children in the most dangerous conflict zones of the world in offering his opinion that the House should pass the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007.  He noted that between 1986–1996, over two million children were killed in conflict zones.  This number has arguably increased dramatically since that time frame because of the emergence of other civil conflicts including Sierra Leone.  The subcommittee was provided with details concerning the deplorable tactics of those who recruit child soldiers, including the use of drugs and forcing children to kill their parents under threat of physical violence.

As indicated by the Professor Crane’s testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, modern international legal norms have prohibited the enlisting and introduction into hostilities of children under the age of 15 years old. 

Professor Crane was the first to prosecute those responsible for the recruitment of child soldiers into armed forces in his capacity as the former Prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

For more information, please see:

Remarks of Professor David M. Cranes - The House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security - Download

OpenCongress – S.2135 Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007

Human Rights Watch – In Support of the “The Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2007; Hearing in the US House Judiciary Subcommittee – April 8 2008

Civilian Contractor Case to Test Limits of Military Criminal Jurisdiction

By Gabrielle Meury
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

For the first time since 1968, the Pentagon is charging a civilian contractor under military law. The civilian contractor, Alaa Mohammad Ali, is not a US citizen. Mr. Ali stands accused of stabbing a fellow contractor with a knife in the chest.

Ali worked as an interpreter for the Titan Corporation, a company that provides interpreters for the American Military. According to Captain Clay Compton, the military lawyer assigned to defend Mr. Ali, Mr. Ali was threatened by an Iraqi interpreter, after which Mr. Ali pulled out a knife. The local interpreter suffered only “superficial lacerations.” Captain Compton states that he plans to challenge the military’s jurisdiction over the case. Captain Compton says that the decision to charge Mr. Ali was not what Congress intended when it sought to crack down on serious abuses by security contractors.

In 2006, Congress passed an amendment to a military spending bill that expanded the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to give the military the right to charge civilians. This expansion of military authority was an effort to stem contractor abuses. Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has written about the role of private contractors, states that this case “is a huge first step from a legal and policy standpoint.” This case will test the constitutionality of the new amendment, as civilians generally have a right to a trial by jury of their peers. If this case goes to trial, it will be decided by a military judge or a panel appointed by General Austin, the day to day commander of military forces in Iraq. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice remarks on the importance of this case, stating that “it is a test of the permissible limits of military criminal jurisdiction.” Captain Compton has a different slant on the situation, observing that, “They want to test out a new American law on somebody who is not even American.”

For more information, please see:

The Nation - Contract Justice - 6 April 2008

New York Times - Military Role Overseeing Contractors Tested in Iraq - 6 April 2008

New York Times - U.S. Charges Contractor at Iraq Post in Stabbing - 5 April 2008

Salvadoran Activists in San Francisco Protest President Saca's Visit

By:  Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Managing Editor - News

SAN FRANCISCO, United States - President Antonio Saca of El Salvador visited San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom over the weekend.  Saca's arrival was met with over 100 activists and Salvadorans protesting his arrival in the city.  The protesters objected to the support U.S. officials have given Saca despite the increase in brutal human rights violations occurring under his presidency.

Newsom is not the first to host Saca in the United States.  In late 2007, the Bush Administration presented Saca with a medal of honor from the International Republican Institute for "promoting freedom and democracy in Latin America."  According to the protesters, Saca stans for the exact opposite.  In fact many human rights activists claim Saca's presidency is illegitimate.  The Bush Administration allegedly threatened to cut off aid to Salvadorans, or worse deport them, prior to Saca's election in the pursuit of ensuring Saca's election.

Among the many other human rights violations claimed to have been committed in El Salvador are; the presence of death squads, attacks from police on activists and street vendors, the suspicious murder of opposition party Mayor by police in January of 2008, the threat of up to 60 years in jail for peaceful protests.

Also a police force called ILEA has allegedly criminalized those who oppose the government.  This has included the use of terrorism charges against activists.  The Inter Press Service quoted the Salvadoran Human Rights Ombudswoman, Beatrice de Carillo, saying that amnesty laws were "creating a climate of impunity" in El Salvador.  The amnesty laws  have prevented investigation into the "disappearance" of thousands of Salvadorans during the civil war of 1980-1992.

For more information, please see:

Indybay.org - Salvadoran Activists Protests Saca Visit with Mayor Gavin Newsom - 6 April 2008

Committee in Solidarity with People of El Salvador - Large Protest Causes "Change of Route" for Salvador's Right-Wing President - 7 April 2008

IPS - El Salvador:  Amnesty Law Biggest Obstacle to Human Rights, Say Activists - 26 March 2008

Human Rights Watch - El Salvador:  Terrorism Law Misused Against Protesters - 31 July 2007

BRIEF: Mexican troops Rob Police Officers After Arresting Them Near United States Border

MEXICO CITY, Mexico – On April 1, 2008, the Mexican army arrested twenty-one police officers in the city of Ciudad Juarez.  The arrests came as a result of Mexico’s effort to “crackdown” of the drug trade near the United States border. 

The arrested officers were held for more than a day without a formal charge against them. 

Mexico’s human rights commission has criticized the Mexican army for “robbing” the officers and “stripping off their clothes before interrogating them.” 

Specifically, the army “swiped cash and credit cards” from female officers after removing their clothing. 

Currently, Mexico’s human rights commission is investigating and attempting to prove possible cases of torture that accompanied the arrests. 

For more information, please see:

Reuters – Mexican troops arrest, rob police officers – 3 April 2008

Reuters – Mexican troops head to new U.S. border drug war zone – 27 March 2008

2003 Memo Reveals Legal Justifications for Harsh Interrogation Tactics

By Gabrielle Meury
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States- The specific contents of a memorandum dated March 14, 2003 by John Yoo, the second-ranking official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, were revealed on April 1. The memo detailed the legal foundation that Bush administration lawyers used to give the White House broad powers to capture, detain and interrogate suspects around the world. The memo allowed presidential discretion to override U.N. treaties against torture, stating, "Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion."

The memorandum allowed the military to use harsh interrogation methods, reasoning that federal laws prohibiting assault were not applicable to military interrogators dealing with the members of Al Qaeda because of White House authority during wartime. The memo reads, “Even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate a criminal statute, the Justice Department could not bring a prosecution because the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in this context.”

The memo was written while the Pentagon was trying to set clear guidelines for military interrogators. The final report defended harsh interrogation methods and provided a narrow definition of torture. Part of the memo’s definition of torture reads, “the victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions will likely result.” Not considered torture are sleep deprivation, hooding detainees and “frog crouching,” which forces prisoners to crouch while standing on the tips of their toes. The memo explicitly permits physical contact, “Employing a shove or slap as part of an interrogation would not run afoul of this standard.”

The memorandum provides a defense in case an interrogator is charged with violating international laws. "Finally, even if the criminal prohibitions outlined above applied, and an interrogation method might violate those prohibitions, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications for any criminal liability."

While this memo was withdrawn in December 2003, it provided a legal foundation for coercive techniques used later against other high-ranking detainees, like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the supposed “chief architect” of the Sept. 11 attacks.

For more information, please see:

New York Times- ’03 Memo Approved Harsh Interrogations – 2 April 2008

New York Times- Text of Memo, Part I – 2 April 2008

New York Times- Text of Memo, Part II – 2 April 2008

Washington Post- Pentagon Releases Memo on Harsh Tactics- 2 April 2008

The Independent - Pentagon Releases Declassified Memo Justifying Harsh Interrogation Tactics- 1 April 2008