Posts filed under 'Human Rights'

Mildred Loving on the meaning of Loving v Virginia

Mildred Loving died May 2 at home in Virginia. Here is her statement prepared for delivery on June 12, 2007, the 4oth anniversary of Loving v Virginia. It was not that long ago that these ordinary heroes had to fight for the right to marry a partner of a different race. Gays and lesbians today are still fighting for the right to marry whom they choose:

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Add comment May 8th, 2008

Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility

As the school year winds toward its end, psychologist Neil Wolman reminds us of efforts of the Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social Responsibility, including its annual Graduation Pledge:

The Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility states, “I pledge to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job I consider and will try to improve these aspects of any organizations for which I work.” Students define for themselves what it means to be socially and environmentally responsible.

Students at over a hundred colleges and universities are using the pledge at some level. Graduates who voluntarily signed the pledge have turned down jobs with which they did not feel comfortable and have worked to make changes once on the job. For example, they have promoted recycling at their organization, removed racist language from a training manual, worked for gender parity in high school athletics, and helped to convince an employer to refuse a chemical weapons-related contract.

If you are already part of our network, thank you for all the work you do. If you would like to get the Pledge going at your institution, please contact Steve Masters at: smasters@bentley.edu

Also contact Boyd.Yarbrough@Furman.edu or www.myacpa.org/task-force/sustainability about a similar First Year Pledge for those entering school.

Other activities of the Bentley Alliance include:

MakeTIAA-CREFethical.org. Working to make educational pension giant TIAA-CREF more socially responsible in its policies.

National Index of Violence and Harm http://www.manchester.edu/links/violenceindex/ The goals of this project are to quantify levels of violence and harm done to people in the United States and identify trends over time.

Add comment April 7th, 2008

Violence and sexual abuse rampant in US teen prisons

In another example of the violence that pervades US society in general, and its criminal justice system in particular,  CNN reports that violence and sexual abuse are routine at US jails for youth:

Sex abuse, violence alleged at teen jails across U.S.

By Ashley Fantz

JACKSON, Mississippi (CNN) — Girls as young as 13 say they were shackled for weeks at a time in Mississippi.

A Texas teen was allegedly offered birthday cake in exchange for sex.

A guard drove his knee into the neck of a frail suicidal Ohio boy after the youth was wrestled to the ground and held down by other guards who stripped him and covered his face with a smock, a state report said.

More than two dozen girls at an Indiana lock-up describe “networking” — their term for sneaking into each other’s cells to have sex, with no interference from guards.

This is a glimpse into what America’s juvenile jails look like, according to lawsuits, criminal cases and experts who have spent years delving into what they call a broken system.

“It’s a nationwide crisis that has been going on for years, one the public has never been told the extent of,” said psychiatric social worker Jerome Miller, the co-founder of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, who has evaluated and helped reform juvenile jails for more than three decades.

This summer, Mississippi plans to close Columbia Training School, a juvenile facility that houses mostly minor offenders. They are often runaways from abusive homes. Listen to stories of Mississippi’s teen lock-ups »

Erica was 16 when she was sentenced to Columbia after running away, a probation violation of an earlier marijuana conviction.

She admits she was a girl quick to sass her parents, full of anger about the death of a relative that happened around the same time Katrina wrecked her family’s Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, home.

Nervously touching a sparkly barrette in her red hair, she cries as she describes how guards forced her legs into tight metal shackles. She said she was cuffed and chained when she ate and used the bathroom — and was even forced to play soccer that way against other girls.

Guards called her “Chain Gang,” she said.

“I will always remember them things around my ankles, the way they cut into me,” she said, pulling up her pant leg to show slash-mark scars on her ankles and heels. “They made you feel like you were nothing.” VideoWatch teen explain suicide attempt was cry for help »

Represented by attorneys with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Erica and nine other girls housed at Columbia are suing the state, claiming they endured a range of sexual and physical abuse, including shackling. Don Desper, a licensed therapist and former employee at Columbia who opposed the practice, told CNN it was used to prevent the teens from escaping.

In a handwritten affidavit, a 15-year-old girl described a male guard molesting her. She wrote: “He came inside my cell half way half of his body and he started touching me and he tryed (sic) to kiss me and then he left he came back with my snack in his hand and he opened my cell again and he started grabbing me around my waist and he tryed (sic) to stick his hands in my pants and I started crying.”

When the lawsuit was filed in 2007, a U.S. Justice Department monitor was making periodic inspections at Columbia as part of a 2005 settlement with Mississippi in a previous case. The Justice investigation that led to that settlement found Columbia youths were hog-tied, forced to strip and eat their own vomit and were held in isolation in what was called the “Dark Room,” a windowless room with a hole in the floor used as a toilet. Read the Justice Department report that describes girls being shackled to poles

Hundreds of youths have allegedly suffered similar abuse at juvenile detention centers across the United States, according to experts interviewed by CNN and court records checked for this story.

The U.S. Justice Department has sued nine states and two territories alleging abuse, inadequate mental and medical care and potentially dangerous methods like the use of restraints. The department doesn’t have the power to shut down facilities — states do — but through litigation it can force a state to improve its detention centers and protect the civil rights of jailed youths.

Another facility under Justice scrutiny is Oakley Training School near Jackson, Mississippi, which was sued by the department at the same time as Columbia. Gov. Haley Barbour recently announced Columbia’s inmates would be transferred this summer to Oakley when Columbia is closed.

But the Justice Department said Oakley has satisfied barely a fraction of requirements the department set for it years ago. According to a March 2008 Justice report, there is an “enormous amount of work” needed to make Oakley a safe and productive place to rehabilitate troubled teens.

Barbour would not respond to questions for this report. The Mississippi Department of Human Services, which runs Columbia and Oakley, refused to answer most of a CNN public records request citing pending litigation and also declined to be interviewed.

The U.S. Justice Department could not talk specifically about ongoing cases, but Lisa Krigsten, civil rights division principal deputy assistant attorney general, noted the department is going after double the number of juvenile jails for civil rights violations during the Bush administration than in any previous administration.

“We take this seriously and are committed to protecting the vulnerable children who are in these places,” she said.

A CNN check of other juvenile facilities shows that, despite years of court wrangling, serious problems persist.

In Ohio, a dozen employees at the Scioto Juvenile Correctional Facility have been indicted since 2003 on charges relating to physical and sexual abuse of youth, according to a May 2007 Justice report. Five were convicted of various charges, including sexual battery and assault; six cases were dismissed and a jury found one employee not guilty.

In January, a state-hired consultant blamed a “culture of violence” in Ohio’s juvenile jails for numerous abuses. The expert’s report details examples of “egregious use of force” by guards and included a video he viewed of a 2007 incident in which a “frail” boy who was threatening to harm himself was restrained by guards.

The boy was wrestled to the ground, cuffed and stripped, with one guard seen putting his full body weight on the boy’s back while driving his knee into the boy’s neck.

A so-called “Suicide Smock” was placed “over his airways,” the report said. “The youth actually screams that he can’t breathe.”

In response to the report, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees detention facilities, has installed more surveillance cameras and beefed up its mental health care staff, spokeswoman Andrea Kruse said.

“We’re doing everything we can to improve,” she said.

On Thursday, Ohio announced settlement of a suit brought by Children’s Law Center of Kentucky. It will add up to $30 million annually to its juvenile justice budget and hire more guards, psychologists and teachers for its system.

Accusations similar to those made in Ohio were made at a Florida boot camp in 2006. Martin Lee Anderson, 14, was seen on surveillance tape being beaten and restrained by guards. Anderson later died. Seven guards and a nurse were acquitted of manslaughter in October.

Since then, the NAACP’s Florida chapter has called for an investigation of the state’s teen jails, noting at least seven youths have died at lock-ups since 2000, including 17-year-old Omar Paisley, who died at a Miami detention center of a ruptured appendix after begging for help during three days that he was in pain.

A grand jury found that two nurses repeatedly failed to help Paisley. They are charged with third degree murder and manslaughter, have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled for trial in July.

Florida issued a report in January asking for more than 50 changes to its system and a partnership with the Department of Education to attack problems before kids drop out of school. Overall, the report calls for treating troubled kids with therapy as an alternative to jail.

Texas is grappling with the fallout from reports of long-term sexual abuse at its facilities, where, since 2000, more than 90 Texas Youth Commission employees — roughly one a month — have been sanctioned or fired for sexual misconduct with adolescents, commission spokesman Jim Hurley told CNN.

Texas granted early release in February to a 16-year-old girl who attempted suicide after she was allegedly molested repeatedly by a male guard. The guard was indicted in December on four counts of molesting the girl. He was previously charged with raping four other female inmates, but those charges were dropped, said Hurley, after witnesses retracted their accounts.

This spring, two administrators at a west Texas youth facility are scheduled to stand trial on charges they were having sex with juvenile inmates, one allegedly enticing a teen to perform sex acts for birthday cake. The men resigned in 2005, Hurley said.

Texas recently has added hundreds more surveillance cameras and personnel to its facilities to avoid more problems, he said.

“Girls are sexually abused in these institutions more often than the public would believe,” said Paul DeMuro, a delinquency expert who in 2002 inspected Columbia for the Justice Department and is now a consultant for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Nationwide, the Justice Department has said 2,821 allegations of sex abuse were made in 2004, the most recent data on the topic available.

An Indiana juvenile judge said there’s another dimension of sexual misconduct happening at Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility — inmate on inmate sex.

State Judge Peter Nemeth is refusing to send female offenders to the lock-up after a team of delinquency experts interviewed a total of 31 girls at the facility. The girls described “networking,” or sneaking into each other’s cells for sex. Members of the team told CNN that locks on cells were not working, allowing the young women to leave and enter their cells whenever they wish.

One girl interviewed said a guard had participated in the sex.

“It’s a dangerous place,” said Nemeth, who is sending youths to two other facilities at more than twice the cost to taxpayers. “It seems like chaos to me, very little discipline. The girls say they are running the place.”

In March, the Indiana Department of Correction said it is transferring boys at the facility to another lock-up, which Nemeth hopes will allow more staffers to oversee the girls section. “It may be a step in the right direction,” he said, but won’t necessarily solve the problem of girls frequently having sex with other girls.

Before March, the judge detailed his concerns in two letters to Gov. Mitch Daniels, whose office referred all questions for this story to Indiana Department of Correction spokesman Doug Garrison.

“We disagree with the judge’s characterization,” Garrison said, adding that no investigation at the facility has substantiated the girls’ claims.

When Erica was held at Columbia, she said she didn’t think anyone would believe her accounts of abuse. It’s taken months of therapy, including some counseling at a YMCA, which she found in her small Mississippi hometown.

Erica talks about wanting to be an attorney. It’s the first time in her life she is considering her future. She tries not to think about Columbia, but smiles when she talks about the facility closing.

“I’m happy, real happy,” said Erica. “That means nobody is going to get hurt there again.”

Add comment April 5th, 2008

Steven Miles on APA revised torture ban

Bioethicist Steven Miles sends the following comment on the American Psychological Association revision of its 2007 resolution against torture, and blogger Valtin’s comments on the change:

 Valtin is correct. The February 22 APA statement entirely conforms to current US policy of lip service in public and war crimes in private.

* It accepts the US “reservations” to the Convention Against Torture, reservations that have been internationally condemned, reservations which define torture within US jurisprudence not international law, and reservations which permit any other country to de-internationalize definitions of torture. Some countries for example, have signed the Convention Against Torture with the reservation that corporeal shaaria punishments are not torture.

* It affirms the US Military Commissions Act which accepts the unacceptable novel category of “illegal combatants,” denies such persons the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions, and empowers the President to define the meaning of the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

* It does not dissociate psychologists from coercive interrogations.

The current APA statement is a disgrace.

2 comments March 19th, 2008

The “monster” comment and the monstrous administration

Today, Obama adviser Samantha Powers resigned after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster,” and failing in her take-back. Marc Cooper reminds us who Samantha Powers is, and of her intimate knowledge of the amoral nature of the Bill Clinton administration that did nothing but carefully avoid the word “genocide” when confronted with the death of over 800,000 in Rwanda. As Cooper also reminds us, Bill Clinton got to have another of those carefully orchestrated Clinton tearful moments mouthing “I’m sorr” years later:

Clinton, Genocide and a Campaign Gaffe

by Marc Cooper

The Barack Obama campaign is about to pay a very high price for the inopportune words of one of its most distinguished foreign policy advisors. The dazzlingly brilliant journalist, Pulitzer-prize winning author, and Harvard professor, Samantha Power, has been forced to resign from the campaign after she recklessly told a reporter that Hillary Clinton is a “monster.”

In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it’s true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power’s derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.

Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book “A Problem From Hell” which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don’t know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team - from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher - just let it ring.

And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power’s book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an “amoral narcissist.”

Former Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, tells us a similar story in his own memoir. General Dallaire recounts how, at the height of the Rwandan holocaust, he got a phone call from a Clinton administration staffer who wanted to know how many Rwandans had already died, how many were refugees and how many were internally displaced. Writes Dallaire: “He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier.” Eventually, ten times that many would die. And our response? A handful of years later, at a photo-op stopover in Kigali airport, Bill Clinton bit his lip and said he was sorry.

Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. “I’m getting creamed,” Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).

We gave Power the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed.

1 comment March 7th, 2008

Iraq to round up destituteas “antiterrorism” measure

The Associated Press (via the New York Times) reports that the Iraqi government intends to imprison the most helpless and destitute, supposedly to protect a few of them from being exploited as suicide bombers by terrorists. This article was sent to me by a friend whose accompanying comment says it all:

Quite remarkable from many points of view. Does anyone seriously think that Iraq has institutions capable of caring for the people being rounded up, as opposed to throwing them into rudimentary camps (basically prisons) of some kind? Or that the Iraqi and US governments care anything about these people? So, it’s now illegal to be homeless or mentally disabled? But the article makes it all sound so benign (except that some silly advocates for the mentally ill seem to have a little problem with it). Truly disgusting. Also, didn’t I just see an article in the paper about how some Iraqi official announced that al-Qaida in Iraq has already been driven out of Baghdad?

Here’s the article:

Iraq Orders Police to Round Up Beggars

by The Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) — The Iraqi Interior Ministry ordered police on Tuesday to begin rounding up beggars, homeless and mentally disabled people from the streets of Baghdad and other cities to prevent insurgents from using them as suicide bombers.

The decision, which elicited concern from advocates for the mentally disabled, came nearly three weeks after twin suicide bombings against pet markets. Officials said those blasts were carried out by mentally disabled women who may have been unwitting attackers.

The U.S. military and the Iraqi government have claimed that Sunni insurgents led by al-Qaida in Iraq are increasingly trying to use Iraq’s most vulnerable populations as suicide bombers to avoid raising suspicions or being searched at checkpoints that guard access to many markets, neighborhoods and bridges in the capital.

The people detained in the Baghdad sweep will be handed over to social welfare institutions and psychiatric hospitals that can provide shelter and care for them, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

”This will be implemented nationwide starting today,” Khalaf told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

”Militant groups, like al-Qaida in Iraq, have started exploiting these people in the worst way to kill innocent victims because they do not raise suspicions,” Khalaf said. ”These groups are either luring those who are desperate for money to help them in their attacks or making use of their poor mental condition to use them as suicide bombers.”

However, it is not clear that such people would be safe in psychiatric hospitals. American and Iraqi troops recently detained the acting director of the al-Rashad psychiatric hospital in eastern Baghdad on suspicion of helping supply patient information to al-Qaida in Iraq.

The U.S. military has linked the insurgents’ willingness to use women or children as suicide bombers with their attempts to bounce back from losses in recent U.S.-led offensives.

The military said this week that attacks across Iraq have dropped more than 60 percent in the year since a joint campaign to cut down their influence began last February. But U.S. commanders have warned that al-Qaida in Iraq is a resilient foe and acknowledged they have been unable to stop the group’s signature suicide attacks.

While concrete barriers have reduced the effectiveness of car bombings in the capital, a series of suicide attacks by female bombers has deepened concern.

Women often aren’t searched at checkpoints because of a dearth of female guards. As a result, police said 1,000 female officers will be deployed among the pilgrims massing in the Shiite holy city of Karbala for a major pilgrimage next week.

The Iraqi claim that mentally disabled women were used in the Feb. 1 pet market bombings was met initially with skepticism. Iraqi authorities said they based the assertion on photos of the bombers’ heads that purportedly showed the women had Down syndrome, and did not offer any other proof.

However, the director of the Ibn-Rushd psychiatric teaching hospital in central Baghdad, Dr. Shalan al-Abboudi, said that one of the pet market bombers, a 36-year-old married woman, had been treated there for schizophrenia and depression, according to her file. Refusing to identify her, he said she received electric shock therapy and was released into the custody of an aunt.

The U.S. military said it understood the Interior Ministry intends to transfer those taken into custody to the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry.

”We are aware of the Ministry of Interior’s efforts to try and protect homeless and mentally impaired citizens from becoming the unwitting victims of al-Qaida in Iraq,” Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a military spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.

It was not clear how the plan could be implemented in a capital city of more than 5 million people who have grown used to maintaining a low profile and often hiding their identity during nearly five years of bloodshed.

The targets could include women shrouded in traditional Islamic black robes and headscarves who sit on the pavement of public squares or roam around the stalls of open-air markets to beg for money.

Laurie Ahern, the associate director of the Washington, D.C.-based Mental Disability Rights International, expressed concern that Iraqi authorities might be casting ”an awful wide net.”

She noted that insurgents were recruiting women and children in increasing numbers — but said no one should suggest detaining them.

”To round up a group of people based on a disability … I’m not sure that’s the best way to handle the situation,” Ahern said in a telephone interview.

Ahern added that given the traumas of the U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, many Iraqis could be considered mentally vulnerable.

Khalaf was not more specific about how police would choose their targets. He said beggars and homeless people 18 years or older would be placed in the custody of the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, while people with mental problems would be taken to psychiatric hospitals.

He also said those determined to be professional beggars would be prosecuted.

Mohammad Hadi, a 28-year-old Finance Ministry employee, welcomed the idea of clamping down on the street people.

”If they were left free, the terrorists might exploit their condition for attacks,” he said. ”But while I am happy with the Interior Ministry’s campaign against such people, I do believe that police must respect their human rights and take them to a safe, comfortable place.”

——

Associated Press writers Sinan Salaheddin and Saad Abdul-Kadir in Baghdad and Raphael G. Satter in London contributed to this report.

Add comment February 22nd, 2008

Saudis to behead “witch”

Valtin, over at Daily Kos, tells the horrifying story of the Saudi woman sentenced to be beheaded for being a witch! This in the 21st century. Alas, this execution is not unique, but part of a pattern of brutality by the Saudi state.

As Human Rights First reports, as quoted by Valtin, the conviction is based on a “confession” extracted by brutal beatings:

The legal basis for this decision includes the statement that witches “are not given the opportunity to repent, because witchcraft is not eradicable by penitence”….

…the accused was unable to challenge any of the witnesses against her: the witnesses did not testify in court, but gave written statements, and the judge kept her in the waiting room during sessions when evidence was presented….

Fawza Falih spent 35 days in detention at the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) after her arrest on May 4, 2005 (25/3/1426). Her detention there violated a 1981 royal decree prohibiting the CPVPV from holding and interrogating suspects at their centers. She asserted in her appeal that she was beaten during her interrogation, naming one official of the governorate. Her appeal states that she lost consciousness during one beating and was treated at the hospital. She asserts that fellow female prisoners bandaged her wounds. Human Rights Watch spoke to a relative who was allowed to visit her for the first time after about 20 days in CPVPV detention, following her hospital treatment, and saw marks from beatings on her back. There would thus have been ample evidence to indicate that her confession was coerced.

Valtin concludes:

I leave it to my readers to decide what it means in 2008 that to save an innocent woman’s life one must write to a King. If you do write to HRH King Abdullah bin Abd al-’Aziz Al Saud, at Royal Court, Riyadh 11111, Saudi Arabia, please be polite and save your political points for elsewhere. Ask for justice and mercy.

Later, as you reflect upon the state of our world, pray to whatever god you like for the same upon all of us. Upon one innocent woman’s head lies the destiny of us all.

Add comment February 21st, 2008

UN Human Rights Commissioner: Waterboarding is torture; should be prosecuted

As the Bush administration lauds it’s use of waterboarding, and the Attorney General says it’s legal, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reminds us that waterboarding is torture and is subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning it can be prosecuted anywhere in the world. Alas, no country has the nerve to stand up to the U.S. torture regime. Only U.S. citizens can restore the rule of law.

Waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture - UN

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the U.N. human rights chief said Friday.

“I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture,” the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told a news conference in Mexico City.

Arbour made her comment in response to a question about whether U.S. officials could be tried for the use of waterboarding that referred to CIA director Michael Hayden telling Congress Tuesday his agency had used waterboarding on three detainees captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Violators of the U.N. Convention against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of ‘universal jurisdiction’ which allows countries to try accused war criminals from other nations, Arbour said.

“There are several precedents worldwide of states exercising their universal jurisdiction … to enforce the torture convention and we can only hope that we will see more and more of these avenues of redress,” Arbour said.

The U.S. Congress is considering banning the practice, in which prisoners are immobilized and water is poured into their breathing passages to simulate drowning.

Arbour referred to an arrest warrant issued in 1998 by a Spanish judge for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who died in 2006, on charges of torture, murder and kidnapping in the years that followed his 1973 coup.

Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s were known to use waterboarding on political prisoners.

Add comment February 9th, 2008

Wikleaks on the crisis in Kenya

Wikileaks has a new Editorial on the crisis in Kenya that provides useful background on the struggle there and a perspective on the way forward. [Clearly some of those affiliated with Wikileaks are Kenyan]:

An American Solution to the Kenyan Constitutional Crisis

Wikileaks EDITORIAL (Kenya)
2008-01-23

Kenya is home to more than 70 ethnic groups of different origins but with a long history of interaction. Most were already here when the colonialists arrived towards the end of the nineteenth century. In pre-colonial times, these ethnic groups all had historical connections to groups outside present-day Kenya:

The pre-colonial peoples of Kenya

The ethnic groups making up the black African population represented in Kenya fall under four main language divisions:

  • The Bantu
  • The Western Nilotes
  • The Eastern and Southern Nilotes
  • The Cushites

The groups can further be broken down into so-called tribes. Tribalism is primitive in a Globalised world and has no place in Kenya today.

The Independent peoples of Kenya

The Constitution Of Kenya carries the definition of a Kenyan Citizen in Chapter V1. There is a clear definition of a KENYAN citizen and no reference whatsoever to any ethnic group. All ethnic groups are Kenyans and all are equal under the Constitution of Kenya. For Kenya’s black communities to see themselves as Kenyan, they must also learn to see the other communities as equally Kenyan too. Nonetheless sensitive issues remain, such as land and the economic, political and educational privileges historically enjoyed by certain communities.

Kenya is a Democracy

The word democracy comes from the Greek demokratia, from demos, ‘the people,’ and kratein, ‘to rule’, and it means simply ‘rule by the people’. Democracy in its broadest sense thus means a way of governing based on people’s consent or the ‘will of the people’. It stands for the welfare of all and for the common good. The basic rules of democracy include recognition of the fact that power belongs to the citizens and the importance of achieving the following goals:

  • the greatest possible freedom for all;
  • a just society;
  • the same rules for all;
  • equality before the law;
  • respect for the rule of law; and
  • equal opportunities for all.

In a democracy, people rule themselves either directly or indirectly through their representatives. In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is therefore necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power – the concept of a ‘loyal opposition’

There are various ways in which different societies and governments seek to achieve democracy as an ideal. In some cases, people are involved directly in making decisions about public affairs. In other cases, people choose representatives to act on their behalf.

In direct democracy, the people themselves directly express their will on public issues. Direct democracy can also be described as participatory democracy as it involves all citizens in making decisions on public matters. Each person is given the opportunity to take part in making public decisions directly. People do not need to delegate that right to another person – or a representative – who represents their choices. The best example of participatory democracy is where citizens vote in a referendum. A referendum is a direct vote by all the citizens to decide on a political matter of national importance. For instance, a referendum can be used to decide whether to adopt or reject a new constitution, as happened in Kenya in November 2005.

Since, it is practically impossible to gather all the citizens of Kenya together to play a part of government, the function of Government must be performed by a number of individuals smaller than the totality of its citizens. An election is the chief basis of political legitimacy. The General election is the platform that we use to select a few Kenyan citizens to the National Assembly in order to represent our interests and perform the function of Government. The Members of Parliament are elected by the Kenyan citizens to watch over their interests and to, either form or check Government. This is indirect Democracy. In indirect democracy, people elect their representatives periodically to govern on their behalf and to specifically express people’s feelings on public issues. The state in this form of democracy is not directly governed by the people themselves but by their representatives. This form of democracy is practised in the modern nation-states because they are large in area and in population. Their structures and problems are also complex and varied. It is difficult to involve everybody in such a situation. As a form of indirect democracy, representative democracy requires individuals to elect other persons to exercise power and make decisions on their behalf. A person exercises his or her power through a representative. Kenyans elect their representatives every five years to govern on their behalf and to specifically express people’s feelings on public issues.

But, a democratic Kenya cannot survive, unless the people of Kenya feel that they can affect their system of Government and see all their preferences enacted. Nothing could be more important. Power must at all times; be exercised by the citizens of the Republic of Kenya, rather than the president!. Power can only be exercised by the citizens where the will of the people is seen to be done.

The problem with this country, lies in the fact, that we as citizens have for 43 years been elevating unqualified citizens to public office. The risks we have taken have resulted in Incompetence and Greed! We are responsible for creating a breed of Kenyan politicians who are not at all serious about the electoral process and the meaning of the phrase political accountability. These Politicians are not only low, uncouth, immoral individuals but also clearly visionless. These people have without any regard taken away one by one, all our Individual Rights guaranteed to all Kenyans under our Constitution in the pretext of exercising our mandate.

The Bill of Rights

The Constitution of Kenya under chapter V guarantees all Kenyans the Bill of Rights. NO ONE HAS THE POWER OR AUTHORITY BY LAW TO TAKE AWAY THESE RIGHTS FROM KENYANS. Any attempt to do so is unconstitutional, treasonable and punishable by death, as it amounts to a subversion of our Constitution.

Civil Rights upheld in the Constitution of Kenya
  • The right to life,
  • The right to personal freedom,
  • Protection against slavery and forced labour,
  • Protection from inhuman treatment,
  • Protection from property being taken away illegally,
  • Protection against illegal search or entry,
  • The right to the protection of the law,
  • Freedom of conscience,
  • Freedom of expression,
  • Freedom of association and assembly,
  • Freedom of movement, and
  • Freedom from discrimination.

This means that all Kenyans have—

Political freedom
  • hold your own views and talk about what you think and believe,
  • associate and meet with others, and
  • move freely without hindrance.

Economic freedom
  • the ability to own and use property,
  • the chance to work and provide for your livelihood, and
  • freedom from forced labour and slavery.

Social freedom
  • the fair treatment of all citizens,
  • no interference with one’s body, premises or private life, and
  • no inhuman treatment.

In a democracy, all people are seen as having been born equal and are treated equally before the law. Democracy rejects any form of discrimination among people and provides a framework for justice, fairness and equality. Justice is a set of rules that provide each person and/or groups in society with basic rights. These include:

  • Human rights,
  • The rule of law,
  • Economic justice, and
  • Gender equity.

The current Administration is abusing these rules even though Kenya has ratified several United Nations conventions on human rights, among them:

  • The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights;
  • The International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights;
  • The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
  • The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
  • The Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The concept of the ‘rule of law’ is based on the idea of government by law. This means that no person is above the law. That is to say, all citizens (from the President to the lowliest Kenyan) are subject to and equal before the law. It means that no person can suffer punishment unless that person has broken the law and is rightly judged through the established judicial process. Leaders, too, must exercise their powers according to laid down law. Anybody who makes a decision must do so within the law. For example: The Constitution Of Kenya provides for freedom of assembly, and the government is bound by this rule. It cannot prevent a public meeting simply because it dislikes or disagrees with the views of those responsible for calling that meeting. Government officers must first obtain a court order before preventing a meeting from taking place.

Controlling the Abuse and exercise of political power

The state has legitimate power to control and influence actions within its borders. The principal organs (called arms of the government) through which the government exercises its powers are:

  • The Legislature: that makes policies and laws and also supervises the work of the Executive;
  • The Executive: that carries out the policies and laws passed by the Legislature; the institution that runs the government;
  • The Judiciary: that interprets and applies the laws passed by the Legislature and deals with any disputes that occur within the state.

The principle of separation of powers sets limits on the work of the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. It provides the checks and balances that prevent misuse of power by any of the three arms of government. The principle of separation of powers requires that:

  • There should be the least possible overlap in the powers and functions of the different arms of government;
  • There should be no overlap of staff in the different arms of government;
  • No arm of government should interfere with the functions and work of any of the other arms; and
  • No arm of government should be more powerful than any of the others.

But is this the case in Kenya today? No it is not. Why?

Corruption

Checks and balances are mechanisms to make sure that no part of the government has too much power, or goes beyond its functions, and that each arm of the government can check the misuse of power by the other arms of the government. Examples of the checks and balances contained in the Constitution of Kenya are:

  • The President, as head of the executive, can reject a Bill passed by Parliament, although Parliament may override the President’s decision with a second vote.
  • The Judiciary can cancel laws passed by Parliament if these laws are not in line with the Constitution.
  • The Judiciary can cancel any action by the Executive if this action is not in line with the law or with the rules of natural justice.
  • The Executive has to get permission, by asking Parliament to pass the national budget, to use public money for administration.
  • The President cannot dismiss a judge from office unless a tribunal has been appointed to investigate and recommend an action against the judge.

The act by Kibaki to steal the election and swear himself into Office was the ultimate Act of Corruption. That of Abuse of Power for personal gain. The check for this action would have been that the Judiciary can cancel any action by the Executive if this action is not in line with the law or with the rules of natural justice. But rather than this course of action the Judiciary swore Kibaki into Office, following his illegal declaration as winner of the Presidential Election. Here the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judicial functions of the government has not been applied leaving Kenyans with very few options.

Will it be Kenyans that set the democratic agenda?

A democracy represents the ‘will of the people” We went to the polls, voted peacefully and weeks later, we still do not know who won the election. What we do know is that Kenyans are killing Kenyans, the Police are killing Kenyans, The country is on fire and our Constitutions seems to have been suspended by Kibaki who seems to be ruling by decree! We have lost every single one of our Constitutional Rights. So, What is the way forward?

We declare ourselves Independent from Constitutional office bearers who have abused the Constitution and refuse to be governed by them by cutting all ties. How?

We try going the American Way. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. The American Declaration of Independence, opens with a preamble describing the document’s necessity in explaining why the colonies have overthrown their ruler and chosen to take their place as a separate nation in the world. All men are created equal and there are certain unalienable rights that governments should never violate. These rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government. In its place, the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights. Governments are rarely overthrown, and should not be overthrown for trivial reasons. In this case, a long history of abuses led the colonists to overthrow a tyrannical government.

The president of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki, is guilty of very specific abuses. The President has interfered with Kenyans Constitutional rights to their Fundamental rights and for a fair judicial system. Acting with other Constitutional Office bearers (the Chief Justice, the Registrar of the High Court, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya, the Attorney General, and the Heads of all the disciplined forces of the Republic) the President has unconstitutionally sworn himself in as President and is in office illegally. Acting with Constitutional Office bearers, the President has instituted legislation S.25A without the consent of Parliament that will affect the people of Kenya without their consent. This legislation allows appointees by the President to forgive and negotiate with individuals who have looted Kenyan tax payers money in a non transparent manner. Acting with Constitutional Officers , the President has given shoot to Kill orders against the People of Kenya to quash dissent. Acting with Constitutional Officers, the President has removed their right to judicial trial by courts, and prevented Kenyans from trading freely. Additionally, the President and the Police Commissioner are guilty of outright destruction of Kenyan life and property by their refusal to protect the Kenyan and their Fundamental rights to property and life. The president acting with Constitutional Officers has allowed foreign mercenaries to come to Kenya (some from Uganda) and threaten the security of the citizens.

The People of Kenya have tried to reach a peaceful reconciliation of these differences with the President and the constitutional offices, but are being continually ignored. International Mediators who have appealed to the President have been similarly ignored. despite their shared concern with Kenyans for their just cause. After many peaceful attempts, Kenyans have no choice but to declare independence from these Constitutional office bearers. The new nation will be called the ————and will incorporate the people driven Constitution the BOMAS DRAFT as the new Constitution of Kenya. The new government under this Constitution will reserve the right to levy war, make peace, make alliances with foreign nations, conduct trade, and do anything else that nations do.

Kibaki will have to go and will go- by whatever means necessary. Kenya will not have a Dictator. Never Again. We must restore Democracy in our Country at whatever cost. This is our Patriotic Duty that will protect Kenyan generations from Tyranny.

Add comment January 24th, 2008

1,000 American lawyers oppose criminal activity by Bush adminstration

First we had the scene of thousands of lawyers in Pakistan fighting that country’s dictator. Now American lawyers are joining in. Over 1,000 have signed a statement calling for Congressional investiagation into abuses, and potential criminality, by the Bush administration:

We, the undersigned lawyers in the United States, have been inspired by the many lawyers in Pakistan who have risked their own liberty and careers in an effort to preserve their nation’s freedoms.

Their courage has deepened our own resolve to defend the rule of law in our nation. As lawyers, we have both a moral and professional responsibility to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.

To that end, we are committed to creating a movement of lawyers in this nation dedicated to monitoring and, when appropriate, challenging the actions of our government when those actions threaten our nation’s freedoms.

As our initial act, we are issuing the following statement to the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees, urging hearings into the unconstitutional and possibly criminal actions of the Bush Administration.

Message to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy from

American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law from those who would violate and subvert them, and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws. Evidence exists that it has illegally spied on Americans, tortured and abused men and women in its direct custody, sent others to be tortured by countries like Syria and Egypt, and kept people in prison indefinitely with no chance to challenge the bases of their detention. Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight of the executive branch.

Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution, federal statutes, and international treaties. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. Should these hearings demonstrate that laws have in fact been broken by this administration, we support all such legal and congressional actions necessary to ensure the survival of our Constitution and the nation we love.

 

Signed,

Sign here.

Add comment December 27th, 2007

Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

May 2008
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category