Archive for the ‘Human rights’ Category

Dick Cheney Throws Down Gauntlet, Defies Prosecution for War Crimes

December 20, 2008

by Marjorie Cohn

Dick Cheney has publicly confessed to ordering war crimes. Asked about waterboarding in an ABC News interview, Cheney replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.” He also said he still believes waterboarding was an appropriate method to use on terrorism suspects. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the agency waterboarded three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003.U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone’s nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be held liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.

Why is Cheney so sanguine about admitting he is a war criminal? Because he’s confident that either President Bush will preemptively pardon him or President-elect Obama won’t prosecute him.

Both of those courses of action would be illegal.

First, a president cannot immunize himself or his subordinates for committing crimes that he himself authorized. On February 7, 2002, Bush signed a memo erroneously stating that the Geneva Conventions, which require humane treatment, did not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Supreme Court made clear that Geneva protects all prisoners. Bush also admitted that he approved of high level meetings where waterboarding was authorized by Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey says there’s no need for Bush to issue blanket pardons since there is no evidence that anyone developed the policies “for any reason other than to protect the security in the country and in the belief that he or she was doing something lawful.” But noble motives are not defenses to the commission of crimes.

Lt. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, said, “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Second, the Constitution requires President Obama to faithfully execute the laws. That means prosecuting lawbreakers. When the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, thereby making them part of U.S. law, we agreed to prosecute those who violate their prohibitions.

The bipartisan December 11 report of the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

Lawyers who wrote the memos that purported to immunize government officials from war crimes liability include John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales. There is precedent in our law for holding lawyers criminally liable for participating in a common plan to violate the law.

Committee chairman Senator Carl Levin told Rachel Maddow that you cannot legalize what’s illegal by having a lawyer write an opinion.

The committee’s report also found that “Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there.” Those techniques migrated to Iraq and Afghanistan, where prisoners in U.S. custody were also tortured.

Pardons or failures to prosecute the officials who planned and authorized torture would also be immoral. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”

During the campaign, Obama promised to promptly review actions by Bush officials to determine whether “genuine crimes” were committed. He said, “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” but “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

Two Obama advisors told the Associated Press that “there’s little-if any – chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.”

When he takes office, Obama should order his new attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute those who ordered and authorized the commission of war crimes.

Obama has promised to bring real change. This must be legal and moral change, where those at the highest levels of government are held accountable for their heinous crimes. The new president should move swiftly to set an important precedent that you can’t authorize war crimes and get away with it.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild.  She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd), which will be published this winter by PoliPointPress.  Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com (The views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer; she is not acting on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild or Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

Israel Deeply Wary of 2009 Anti-Racism Meet

December 20, 2008


By Wolfgang Kerler | Inter Press Service


UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 (IPS) – At their anti-racism conference in Geneva next April, United Nations member states may find themselves — once again — in a heated dispute over how to properly address the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the context of racism, xenophobia and racial discrimination.

Meant to assess and accelerate progress on the implementation of anti-racism measures adopted at the somewhat infamous 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa, the Durban Review Conference will now have to deal with renewed resentments among U.N. member states.

The Asian countries reminded all parties of what had happened seven years ago: In their contribution to a still to be discussed draft declaration for the review conference, they called Israel’s policies towards Palestinians “a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, [and] a form of genocide.”

Back in 2001, even a groundbreaking apology for slavery and colonialism by the developed world was not enough to save WCAR from being seen as a failure by many critics. Events at the forum of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) taking place parallel to the governmental negotiations had just been too tumultuous.

A number of NGOs — presumably backed by Iran and other Muslim countries — put through a final NGO declaration that condemned Israel with words similar to those now used by the Asian region: “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansings”, and “acts of genocide”. Clearly anti-Semitic cartoons and books were circulated at the forum — accompanied by statements that were equally anti-Semitic. To express their protest, Israel and the United States left WCAR.

Nevertheless, in early 2007, after the U.N. General Assembly had decided to hold a follow-up conference, Israel announced that it will take part in the Apr. 20-24, 2009 “Durban II” — as it is sometimes referred to — as long as there was no similar anti-Israel atmosphere. On Nov. 19, shortly after the release of the statements by the Asian region, Israel decided to withdraw from Durban II.

“It was perfectly predictable — and preventable,” Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, told IPS. “There is no country in the world that would want to willingly subject itself to a kangaroo court where it is demonised and delegitimised,” he added.

However, Navanethem Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and appointed secretary-general of Durban II, told the press that “the ambassador of Israel came to see me to say if the objectionable language is remedied, they will continue to participate.”

She stressed that “we are a long way from coming up with the draft outcome document for the Review Conference” and urged that all countries participate, asking: “How can you influence the outcome document unless you are there?”

In April, a group of 94 NGOs — including Human Rights First and the American United Nations Association, for example — released a statement on the core principles for Durban II, pledging to “reject hatred and incitement in all its forms, including anti-Semitism, to learn from the shortcomings of the 2001 WCAR.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW), an international human rights advocate, also published a position paper on the Durban Review Conference. It called on participants to avoid “a repeat of the conduct that so marred the 2001 conference” — especially the singling out of Israel as the focal point of hostility.

HRW “does not seek to exempt Israel from criticism of its human rights record”, but is rejecting “hyperbolic accusations that cannot be factually supported or singling out one government to the exclusion of other comparable offenders,” the paper said.

For example, human rights violations and discriminatory policies are reported across the world, including in Libya and Iran — which have been elected to chair and vice-chair the preparatory committee of the Durban Review Conference, respectively.

Worried that the single focus on the question of anti-Semitism might further flaw the legacy of WCAR — or “Durban I” — Ibrahim Wani, chief of the Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR), told IPS: “[While] there is no question about the highly insensitive displays and statements at the [2001] NGO-Forum, it is important to distinguish this forum from the inter-governmental process.”

“There is no allegation anywhere that the governmental meeting itself witnessed a display of anti-Semitism,” he stressed.

Wani, who is involved with the preparations for Durban II, added that “at the end of the day [the U.N. member states] were able to reach compromise on some key issues — the Israel-Palestinian question, the issue of reparations and apology for slavery and colonialism, or the issue of migration.” No offensive language could be found in the outcome document.

With the mechanism put in place within the U.N. system, the commitments the member states agreed on, and the framework of actions it provides to address racism, Wani called the “Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” (DDPA) “a significant step forward in historical terms.”

Another historic event that occurred immediately after conference doors closed in Durban might cause dissent at Durban II — the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Western counter-terrorism policies that followed.

Mourning the rise in Islamophobia since 2001, Muslim countries are pushing to include language regarding “defamation of religion” — especially of Islam — in the Durban II outcome document. Western countries oppose such claims, assuming that some states may want to excuse their own human rights violations — especially concerning freedom of speech – as “defamation of Islam”.

Iraqi shoe-thrower was beaten by security, says judge

December 20, 2008

• Chief investigator says journalist may be pardoned
• Doubts cast on apology as ‘shoe intifada’ spreads

Muntazer al-Zaidi could hardly have anticipated the extraordinary reaction when he hurled his shoes at George Bush on Sunday to protest at the invasion of Iraq. His “farewell kiss” to the US president has kept the previously unknown TV journalist in the centre of global attention – a hero across the Arab world and beyond.

Zaidi, who was wrestled to the ground by security men, was beaten on the face, investigating judge Dhia al-Kinani revealed in Baghdad yesterday. But claims that he has asked the Iraqi prime minister to forgive him for his “big ugly act” were immediately questioned by his brother.

Zaidi’s emergence as a role model for anti-American resistance was confirmed by the Iranian ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who praised what he called the “shoe intifada [uprising]” at Tehran University, where demonstrations against the “Great Satan” have been routine for 30 years.

In a mosque in Baghdad’s Sadr City, Shia cleric Mohanad al-Moussawi told worshippers that “al-Zaidi’s life must be protected and he must be immediately, immediately, immediately released”. Sunni preachers issued similar calls.

In London, Media Workers Against the War presented a box of shoes and a letter – signatories included Tony Benn – to the US embassy, pointing out that the journalist was “guilty of nothing but expressing Iraqis’ legitimate and overwhelming opposition to the US-led occupation of their country.”

Kinani said Zaidi’s letter to prime minister Nouri al-Maliki could lead to a pardon rather than a two-year jail sentence, but Zaidi’s brother Dirgham insisted in an interview with al-Jazeera that any apology could only have been written “under pressure”.

If it is confirmed, Zaidi’s remorse may not be appreciated by supporters such as the Egyptian who offered to marry his 20-year-old daughter to Zaidi or the Palestinian from the West Bank town of Nablus who went further: pledging both a daughter and $30,000 for the Iraqi’s legal costs. A Bahraini admirer offered to buy him a luxury limousine.

It could also be a disappointment for the Saudi who reportedly said he would pay 10m riyals for the size 10 “freedom shoes.” Following the old adage that success has many fathers, cobblers all over the Middle East have claimed they manufactured the loafers though most footwear in Iraq is Chinese-made. The most convincing claim came from Turkey, where manufacturer Ramazan Baydan said he might change the name of the shoe, prosaically called Model 271, to the Bush Shoe or Bye-bye Bush model. “Thanks to Bush, orders are flying in like crazy,” he said. Ayatollah Jannati called for the shoes to be deposited in a museum in Iraq. But Judge al-Kinani revealed they had been destroyed by investigators trying to determine whether they contained explosives.

Copycat footwear hurling has apparently also begun elsewhere, with a Ukrainian nationalist, as yet unnamed, throwing his boots at an Odessa speaker arguing in favour of Nato expansion.

It has also been a busy week for the spinoff online game Sock and Awe, which lets players throw virtual brown loafers at Bush. The site says 46m cyber-shoes have struck the presidential head as of Friday afternoon.

China sentences rights activist to two years in prison

December 19, 2008

RINF.COM, Dec 18, 2008

Beijing – A Beijing court sentenced a rights activist to two years in prison on Thursday after convicting her of ‘obstructing public business,’ her husband said.

Dong Jiqin said he was not allowed into the courtroom to present his defence of his wife, Ni Yulan, who planned to appeal against the sentence.

’They didn’t let me in,’ Dong told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

He said Xicheng district court officials only allowed the couple’s adult daughter into the courtroom but apparently did not consider any of the evidence prepared in Ni’s defence.

’They didn’t let our daughter defend her [Ni] or accept her evidence,’ Dong said.

If she loses her appeal, Ni will have to serve the remaining 16 months of her two-year sentence after spending eight months in detention before the trial, he said.

Ni, 48, was arrested on April 15 when she tried to stop some two dozen people from knocking down a wall enclosing part of the yard outside their home, which they had refused to vacate for developers despite years of pressure and threats.

The police claimed that Ni caused serious injury to a worker while she was trying to stop them from damaging her property.

’This was an excuse to arrest her,’ Dong, 56, said in an earlier interview. ‘They didn’t have any evidence.’

The police later accused Ni of kicking an officer while in custody, he said.

The authorities did not allow Dong to visit Ni during her detention, but a lawyer who made several visits reported that she was in poor health and complained of mistreatment during police interviews.

Ni was left disabled following alleged abuses during an earlier spell of police detention.

Dong said their daughter was not allowed to speak to Ni on Thursday but reported that she appeared in poor health.

’My daughter saw her and said she was extremely thin,’ he said.

Ni’s career as a lawyer was first interrupted in 2002 when police illegally detained her for 75 days for filming a forced relocation.

During that detention, Dong said, Ni was beaten and not given medical treatment.

She was left with permanent back and leg injuries and now walks with the aid of crutches, he said.

Ni then lost her right to practise law following a criminal conviction in late 2002 on the same charge of ‘obstructing public business.’

Ni told her lawyer that the police had confiscated her crutches and made her crawl to use the bathroom during her latest detention, Dong said earlier.

Xicheng district authorities razed the family home last month as part of a local government redevelopment plan, following several years of wrangling over legal issues and compensation.

Hundreds of thousands of people have moved over the past 20 years to allow the demolition of most of Beijing’s traditional one-storey housing, which has made way for vast new commercial and residential complexes.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/global/img/copyright_notice.gif

Uzbekistan: Imprisoned Activists’ Health in Danger

December 18, 2008

These activists should never have been imprisoned in the first place. That several of them are now suffering severe health problems as a result is an outrage, and only underscores the urgency of securing their immediate and unconditional release.

Igor Vorontsov, Uzbekistan researcher at Human Rights Watch

A UN review set for today of Uzbekistan’s human rights practices is a crucial opportunity to highlight concern about its abysmal human rights record and press for immediate steps to end abuses, Human Rights Watch said today.

Uzbekistan is coming up for scrutiny before the United Nations’ global rights body, the Human Rights Council, under its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) procedure in Geneva.

Of urgent concern is the plight of imprisoned human rights defenders – currently numbering at least 11 – and other independent political and civic activists whom the Uzbek government has detained on politically motivated grounds. According to recent reports received by Human Rights Watch, a number of these activists are suffering severe health problems as a result of poor conditions and ill-treatment in Uzbekistan’s notoriously abusive prison system.

“These activists should never have been imprisoned in the first place,” said Igor Vorontsov, Uzbekistan researcher at Human Rights Watch. “That several of them are now suffering severe health problems as a result is an outrage, and only underscores the urgency of securing their immediate and unconditional release.”

A new list of imprisoned human rights defenders and activists in Uzbekistan published by Human Rights Watch today gives up-to-date case summaries, detailing the circumstances of each individual’s wrongful detention and highlighting details of the severe health problems faced by a number of them. Among those whose health condition demands immediate attention are Yusuf Jumaev, Alisher Karamatov, Jamshid Karimov, Norboi Kholjigitov, Rasul Khudainasarov, and Sanjar Umarov. In some of these cases, authorities have not only failed to provide adequate medical care, but have actively undermined their health through torture, ill-treatment and the use of psychotropic drugs.

Human Rights Watch urged UN member states taking part in the Uzbekistan review to use the opportunity to send a strong, unequivocal message to Tashkent about the unacceptable state of human rights in the country and about the necessity of concrete and meaningful rights improvements.

Key areas of concern highlighted by Human Rights Watch in its submission to the UPR included the 2005 massacre by government forces in Andijan, in which hundreds were killed and for which the Uzbek government continues to deny justice; the ongoing persecution of human rights defenders and repression of independent civil society activism; torture and ill-treatment in the criminal justice system, which Uzbek authorities have failed to take effective action to address; repression of media freedoms, and; religious persecution targeting in particular Muslims who practice their faith outside state controls or who belong to unregistered religious organizations.

Human Rights Watch also called on the Uzbek government to engage positively and effectively in the human rights review process and to take seriously all recommendations made.

“Improving the dismal human rights situation in Uzbekistan will take more than a rhetorical commitment or yet another seminar,” said Vorontsov. “The Uzbek government should demonstrate real political will by immediately releasing wrongfully detained human rights activists and issuing invitations to all UN rights monitors who have requested access.”

Specific recommendations that Human Rights Watch urged the UN Human Rights Council to address to the Uzbek government included the following:

  • Ensure accountability for the Andijan massacre and cease harassment and other abuses of returned refugees and families of refugees who remain abroad;
  • Immediately and unconditionally release all wrongfully imprisoned human rights defenders, journalists, members of the political opposition and other activists held on politically motivated charges;
  • End the crackdown on civil society and allow domestic and international human rights groups to operate without government interference;
  • Take meaningful measures to end torture and the accompanying culture of impunity, including by complying in full with the recommendations of the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and Committee Against Torture;
  • Cease harassment of journalists and allow domestic and international media outlets, including those that have been forced to stop operating in Uzbekistan, to register and grant accreditation to international journalists;
  • End religious persecution, including by decriminalizing peaceful religious activity; and,
  • Allow unfettered access for independent monitors, including UN special rapporteurs who have been unable to visit due to the government’s refusal to issue the required invitations.
Also available in:

Israelis Continue to Abuse Palestinian Prisoners

December 18, 2008


By Mel Frykberg | Inter Press Service


RAMALLAH, West Bank, Dec 17 (IPS) – Israel released over 200 Palestinians from Israeli jails in a “goodwill gesture” Monday. This followed the Muslim feast of Eid Al-Adha and was an attempt to boost the waning popularity of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Several prisoners spoke to the assembled local and international media about their time in detention. They accused the Israelis of maltreating and physically abusing detainees despite Israeli claims that torture and the abuse of prisoners have been outlawed and no longer occur.

Most of the detainees were Fatah members, the movement associated with Abbas and the ruling Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank.

Some belonged to smaller Palestinian resistance groups such as the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP).

While Israel’s “goodwill gesture” was much touted by the Israeli media, the majority of the prisoners were mostly small-time political detainees, who were due for release fairly shortly, having already served most of their sentences.

Many were teenagers when imprisoned and none were convicted of injuring or killing Israelis.

As negotiations were under way for the release of the 227 prisoners, hundreds more Palestinians were arrested by Israeli security forces.

The move was widely seen as an effort to boost Abbas’s floundering PA. The PA is currently engaged in a political battle against the rival Hamas movement which controls the Gaza Strip.

Hostility between the two main Palestinian political factions is rising as the end of Abbas’s term nears.

Abbas stated he would not step down, while Hamas said it would no longer recognise his authority after Jan. 9, when his term ends.

The released detainees were greeted by tearful family members, friends and hundreds of supporters who crowded into Ramallah’s presidential headquarters in the central West Bank.

Scenes of jubilation erupted against a sea of Fatah and Palestinian flags as patriotic music boomed into the winter air.

Muhammed Abdul Razik, 22, from the town of Qabatia in the northern West Bank, served two of his four-and-a-half-year sentence.

He was convicted in an Israeli court of weapons possession and being a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, an armed offshoot of Fatah.

“I was beaten very badly when I was arrested by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) soldiers. I was kept in the back of a jeep for over four hours in the freezing cold,” Razik told IPS.

“During detention my head was covered with a foul-smelling dirty sack as I was shackled to a chair with my hands handcuffed behind my back in a stressful position.

“Periodically, between punches and slaps, the interrogator would suddenly pull me forward causing extreme pain to my wrists and back,” he said.

Razik added that beatings, insufficient medicine, poor food and lack of family visits were routine while he was incarcerated.

The Israeli Landau Committee into torture in 1987 ruled that Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, the Shabak, or Shin Bet, could use “moderate physical pressure and psychological pressure during the interrogation of detainees.”

The committee did not elaborate on its definition of physical pressure in its report, nor did it outline the circumstances in which it could be used. The details were kept confidential and the full report was never published.

Following petitions by several human rights organisations against the ubiquitous use of torture in the country, the Israeli High Court prohibited the use of certain forms of torture during its 1999 ruling.

However, it authorised the use of “physical means” against detainees including “pressure and a measure of discomfort.”

Rights groups B’Tselem and Hamoked released a report last year ‘Absolute Prohibition: The Torture and Ill-Treatment of Palestinian Detainees’ in which they accused the court ruling of “legitimising severe acts, contrary to international law, which does not acknowledge any exceptions to the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment.”

The organisation added that the beatings, painful binding, humiliation and denial of basic needs appeared to be designed to “soften up the detainees” prior to interrogation.

B’Tselem spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli told IPS, “There has been an improvement, but there are still many cases of ill-treatment occurring.”

B’Tselem and Hamoked interviewed 73 former detainees for their report and found roughly two-thirds had been subject to some kind of mistreatment.

Rabie Al-Latifah from Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq used stronger terms. “Ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons is both widespread and systematic,” Rabie told IPS.

“The United Coalition Against Torture, of which Al-Haq is a member, has observed and recorded evidence of acts, omissions, and complicity by agents of the State at all levels, including the army, the intelligence service, the police, the judiciary and other branches of government,” he added.

The Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association says that more than 800 Palestinians are currently in administrative detention.

Detainees are held for six months at a time without being brought to trial on the basis of “secret evidence”.

This six-month period can be renewed repeatedly with some administrative detainees being jailed for up to six years without being convicted of any crime.

“Confidential material” denied to the detainee’s lawyer determines the period of detention.

Since 2001, the Israeli State Attorney’s Office received over 500 complaints of ill-treatment by Shin Bet interrogators, but not a single criminal investigation was carried out.

These decisions were based on the findings of an investigation conducted by an inspector who was himself a member of the Shin Bet.

Even in cases were interrogators were found guilty of abusing a detainee the State Attorney’s Office closed the case on the basis that the abuse was carried out in the “necessity of defence”. (END/2008)

Ramsey Clark receives UN Human Rights Award 2008

December 17, 2008

Global Research, December 16, 2008

International Action Center

Congratulations to Ramsey Clark

International Action Center founder Ramsey Clark, a former US Attorney General and internationally renown human rights defender, received the respected United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 10 December 2008.

The announcement of the award was presented by the President of the General Assembly, Miguel d´Escoto Brockmann, who is one of the five members of the selection committee. The award is made every five years to five human rights defenders whose life’s work has been outstanding. It is presented on December 10, International Human Rights Day, every five years

At the UN Press Conference after accepting the award, Ramsey Clark emphasized the UN’s role in ensuring world peace reminding journalists that “The greatest threat to human rights is war.”

The award is given to individuals and organizations in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Previous recipients have included Nelson Mandela, Amnesty International, Jimmy Carter, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Reverend Dr. Martin L. King.”

Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto said “As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we acknowledge the tireless work and invaluable contribution of these individuals and organizations that have fought to see the rights and freedoms embodied in this historic document become a reality for people in all corners of the world.”

“These awardees constitute symbols of persistence, valour and tenacity in their resistance to public and private authorities that violate human rights. They constitute a moral force to put an end to systematic human rights violations.”

The UN announcement described Ramsey Clark as “a veteran human rights defender and rule of law advocate, played a key role in the civil rights and peace movements in the US, and more recently has spoken out against abuses committed in the name of “counter-terrorism.”

The International Action Center, founded by Ramsey Clark in 1992 is known internationally for its major role in the anti-war movement in the U.S. and its actions in the forefront of extending solidarity to countries and peoples facing U.S. attack and threats.

The many activists and the large all-volunteer staff of the International Action Center along with hundreds of people who have worked with him over many years extend their enthusiastic congratulations to Ramsey Clark for his tireless and courageous efforts. This United Nations Human Rights Award is well deserved.

We remain committed to solidarity with peoples and countries under U.S. attack. We are determined to continue developing ever wider opposition to U.S. policies of endless war, expanding militarism, racism and growing poverty for millions. Si se puede!

Israel’s ‘Crime Against Humanity’

December 17, 2008

Israel’s siege of Gaza, largely unseen by the outside world because of Jerusalem’s refusal to allow humanitarian aid workers, reporters and photographers access to Gaza, rivals the most egregious crimes carried out at the height of apartheid by the South African regime. It comes close to the horrors visited on Sarajevo by the Bosnian Serbs. It has disturbing echoes of the Nazi ghettos of Lodz and Warsaw.

“This is a stain on what is left of Israeli morality,” I was told by Richard N. Veits, the former U.S. ambassador to Jordan who led a delegation from the Council on Foreign Relations to Gaza to meet Hamas leaders this past summer. “I am almost breathless discussing this subject. It is so myopic. Washington, of course, is a handmaiden to all this. The Israeli manipulation of a population in this manner is comparable to some of the crimes that took place against civilian populations fifty years ago.”

The U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, former Princeton University law professor Richard Falk, calls what Israel is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza “a crime against humanity.” Falk, who is Jewish, has condemned the collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza as “a flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” He has asked for “the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law.”

Falk, while condemning the rocket attacks by the militant group Hamas, which he points out are also criminal violations of international law, goes on to say that “such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel’s imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the U.N. or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people.”

“It is an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe that each day poses the entire 1.5 million Gazans to an unspeakable ordeal, to a struggle to survive in terms of their health,” Falk said when I reached him by phone in California shortly before he left for Israel. “This is an increasingly precarious condition. A recent study reports that 46 percent of all Gazan children suffer from acute anemia. There are reports that the sonic booms associated with Israeli overflights have caused widespread deafness, especially among children. Gazan children need thousands of hearing aids. Malnutrition is extremely high in a number of different dimensions and affects 75 percent of Gazans. There are widespread mental disorders, especially among young people without the will to live. Over 50 percent of Gazan children under the age of 12 have been found to have no will to live.”

Gaza now spends 12 hours a day without power, which can be a death sentence to the severely ill in hospitals. There are few drugs and little medicine, including no cancer or cystic fibrosis medication. Hospitals have generators but often lack fuel. Medical equipment, including one of Gaza’s three CT scanners, has been destroyed by power surges and fluctuations. Medical staff cannot control the temperature of incubators for newborns. And Israel has revoked most exit visas, meaning some of those who need specialized care, including cancer patients and those in need of kidney dialysis, have died. Of the 230 Gazans estimated to have died last year because they were denied proper medical care, several spent their final hours at Israeli crossing points where they were refused entry into Israel. The statistics gathered on children-half of Gaza’s population is under the age of 17-are increasingly grim. About 45 percent of children in Gaza have iron deficiency from a lack of fruit and vegetables, and 18 percent have stunted growth.

“It is macabre,” Falk said. “I don’t know of anything that exactly fits this situation. People have been referring to the Warsaw ghetto as the nearest analog in modern times.”

“There is no structure of an occupation that endured for decades and involved this kind of oppressive circumstances,” the rapporteur added. “The magnitude, the deliberateness, the violations of international humanitarian law, the impact on the health, lives and survival and the overall conditions warrant the characterization of a crime against humanity. This occupation is the direct intention by the Israeli military and civilian authorities. They are responsible and should be held accountable.”

The point of this Israeli siege, ostensibly, is to break Hamas, the radical Islamic group that was elected to power in 2007. But Hamas has repeatedly proposed long-term truces with Israel and offered to negotiate a permanent truce. During the last cease-fire, established through Egyptian intermediaries in July, Hamas upheld the truce although Israel refused to ease the blockade. It was Israel that, on Nov. 4, initiated an armed attack that violated the truce and killed six Palestinians. It was only then that Hamas resumed firing rockets at Israel. Palestinians have launched more than 200 rockets on Israel since the latest round of violence began. There have been no Israeli casualties.

“This is a crime of survival,” Falk said of the rocket attacks. “Israel has put the Gazans in a set of circumstances where they either have to accept whatever is imposed on them or resist in any way available to them. That is a horrible dilemma to impose upon a people. This does not alleviate the Palestinians, and Gazans in particular, for accountability for doing these acts involving rocket fire, but it also imposes some responsibility on Israel for creating these circumstances.”

Israel seeks to break the will of the Palestinians to resist. The Israeli government has demonstrated little interest in diplomacy or a peaceful solution. The rapid expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank is an effort to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution by gobbling up vast tracts of Palestinian real estate. Israel also appears to want to thrust the impoverished Gaza Strip onto Egypt. There are now dozens of tunnels, the principal means for food and goods, connecting Gaza to Egypt. Israel permits the tunnels to operate, most likely as part of an effort to further cut Gaza off from Israel.

“Israel, all along, has not been prepared to enter into diplomatic process that gives the Palestinians a viable state,” Falk said. “They [the Israelis] feel time is on their side. They feel they can create enough facts on the ground so people will come to the conclusion a viable state cannot emerge.”

The use of terror and hunger to break a hostile population is one of the oldest forms of warfare. I watched the Bosnian Serbs employ the same tactic in Sarajevo. Those who orchestrate such sieges do not grasp the terrible rage born of long humiliation, indiscriminate violence and abuse. A father or a mother whose child dies because of a lack of vaccines or proper medical care does not forget. A boy whose ill grandmother dies while detained at an Israel checkpoint does not forget. All who endure humiliation, abuse and the murder of family members do not forget. This rage becomes a virus within those who, eventually, stumble out into the daylight. Is it any wonder that 71 percent of children interviewed at a school in Gaza recently said they wanted to be a “martyr”?

The Israelis in Gaza, like the American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, are foolishly breeding the next generation of militants and Islamic radicals. Jihadists, enraged by the injustices done by Israel and the United States, seek to carry out reciprocal acts of savagery, even at the cost of their own lives. The violence unleashed on Palestinian children will, one day, be the violence unleashed on Israeli children. This is the tragedy of Gaza. This is the tragedy of Israel.

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

UN Rights Investigator Expelled by Israel

December 17, 2008

by Isabel Kershner | The New York Times, December 16, 2008

JERUSALEM — Israeli authorities on Monday expelled Richard Falk, a United Nations investigator of human rights in the Palestinian territories, saying he was unwelcome because of what the government has regarded as his hostile position toward Israel.

Cem Turkel/A.F.P. — Getty Images

Richard Falk speaking in Istanbul in 2005. His positions have angered Israeli officials.

Mr. Falk, an American, arrived in Israel on Sunday. He was held at the airport and placed on the first available flight back to Geneva, his point of departure. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Mr. Falk had been informed in advance that his entry would be barred. Mr. Falk was not immediately available for comment.

Mr. Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton, has the title of United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories. He has long been criticized in Israel for what many Israelis say are unfair and unpalatable views.

He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. Pointing to discrepancies between the official version of events and other versions, he recently wrote that “only willful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book.”

In his capacity as a United Nations investigator, Mr. Falk issued a statement this month describing Israel’s embargo on Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, as a crime against humanity, while making only cursory reference to Hamas’s rocket attacks against Israeli civilian centers. Israeli officials expressed outrage.

When his appointment was announced by the Human Rights Council last spring, the Israeli representative said it was “impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates,” the members had made “the best possible choice for the post.”

The American and Canadian representatives also expressed concerns about Mr. Falk’s possible bias. The Palestinian representative said it was curious that Israel was “campaigning against a Jewish professor” and called the nomination “a victory for good sense and human rights.” Israel objects to the mandate of the special rapporteur on grounds that it ignores all human rights violations by Palestinians, either against Israelis or against other Palestinians. More specifically, it objects to Mr. Falk.

A statement issued on Monday by the Foreign Ministry noted that in the past three years, Israel welcomed visits by seven special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council and two other senior United Nations representatives.

In Mr. Falk’s case, it continued, his “vehement publications” made it “hard to square his appointment” with the council’s own requirements, which call for envoys to be impartial and objective. The council’s own procedures require its envoys to operate with the consent of the state concerned.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor, said that Mr. Falk had come to Israel in June for what was supposed to be a personal visit, but had instead carried out work as a rapporteur. “He lied,” Mr. Palmor said.

Regardless of Mr. Falk’s views, some Israelis questioned the wisdom of banning him, noting that it would hardly make his reports more sympathetic.

Jessica Montell, the executive director of B’Tselem, an Israeli group that monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said that even if Israel had “legitimate concerns about Professor Falk’s mandate,” barring his entry was “an act unbefitting of democracy.”

Also on Monday, Israel released 224 Palestinian security prisoners from its jails as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Most of those released were serving sentences of five years or less. None had been convicted of deadly attacks on Israelis, and none were from Islamic groups hostile to the Palestinian Authority, like Hamas.

Israel has released almost 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in the past 18 months in an effort to strengthen the Western-backed administration of Mr. Abbas. At least 9,000 remain inIsraeli jails.

Cheney Admits Authorizing Detainee’s Torture

December 16, 2008

Outgoing VP says Guantanamo prison should stay open until end of terror war, but has no idea when that might be

By David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster | The Raw Story, Dec 16, 2008

Monday, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney made a startling statement on a nation-wide, televised broadcast.

When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl whether he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called “high value prisoner” at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Cheney, in a break from his history of being press-shy, admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture.

Video is from ABC’s World News, broadcast Dec. 15, 2008.

“I supported it,” he said regarding the practice known as “water-boarding,” a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding, a practice which the outgoing Bush administration attempted to enshrine in policy.

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do,” Cheney said. “And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.”

He added: “It’s been a remarkably successful effort, and I think the results speak for themselves.”

ABC asked him if in hindsight he thought the tactics went too far. “I don’t,” he said.

The prisoner in question, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who the Bush administration alleges to have planned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is one of Guantanamo’s “high value targets” thus far charged with war crimes.

Former military interrogator Travis Hall disagrees with Cheney’s position.

“Proponents of Guantanamo underestimate what a powerful a propaganda tool Guantanamo has become for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, despite several Department of Defense studies documenting the propaganda value of detention centers,” he said in a column for Opposing Views.

“For example, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has monitored numerous Al Qaeda references to Guantanamo in its recruitment propaganda materials,” continued Hall. “Improvements to Guantanamo’s administration of judicial mechanisms will not make its way into Al Qaeda propaganda. Nothing short of closing Guantanamo will remove this arrow from its quiver.”

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the prison and pull US forces out of Iraq. Cheney, however, has a different timeline for when Guantanamo Bay prison may be “responsibly” retired.

“Well, I think that that would come with the end of the war on terror,” he told ABC.

Problematic to his assertion: Mr. Bush’s “war on terror” is undefinable and unending by it’s very nature, and Cheney seems to recognize this as fact.

Asked when his administration’s terror war will end, he jostled, “Well, nobody knows. Nobody can specify that.”