By William Fisher
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) improperly spied on American activists involved in First Amendment-protected activities and mischaracterized nonviolent civil disobedience as terrorism, which placed innocent activists on terrorist watch lists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) charged today in response to a new report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General.
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine undertook his investigation after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the ACLU uncovered evidence that “the FBI was chilling political association and improperly investigating peaceful advocacy groups,” the civil rights group said in a statement.
The Inspector General (IG) found the improper investigations were often opened based on “factually weak” or even “speculative” justifications, and were sometimes extended in duration without sufficient basis.
The IG said that the low standard for opening investigations under the 2002 Attorney General Guidelines, which required only the “possibility” of a federal crime, contributed to the problem.
“The FBI also made false and misleading statements to Congress and the American public to mute criticism over its unlawful spying activities, including a false claim that improper surveillance of a 2002 anti-war protest in Pittsburgh was related to a separate, validly approved FBI investigation,” the report alleges, adding that this incorrect information was repeated by FBI Director Robert Mueller before Congress and in communications between the Bureau and Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who is chairman of the committee..
Michael German, ACLU Senior Policy Counsel and former FBI agent, told IPS, “Basically what the IG report shows is that the FBI spied on a lot of political activists for no good reason. This wasn't just a waste of time and resources that could have been better spent looking at real criminals and terrorists, it had real consequences for the victims, getting them placed in terrorism databases and watchlists that led to more spying and travel delays. And unfortunately in many of the cases, the IG said the FBI's rules allowed this inappropriate spying.
He explained further: “A 2002 revision of the Attorney General guidelines originally written after the COINTELPRO abuses in the 1970s said agents can investigate people based on the mere possibility that crime might occur. There's always the possibility that crime might occur, so none of us can feel safe. People used to say 'if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about,' but this report makes clear that the FBI investigated completely innocent people and put them on terrorist watchlists for years. And despite this abuse, in 2008 the AG guidelines were weakened even more.”
And the Washington Post quoted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an animal rights group that was among those monitored.
"The use of McCarthyite tactics against PETA and other groups that speak out against cruelty to animals and exploitative corporate and government practices is un-American, unconstitutional, and against the interests of a healthy democracy.''
But despite the public outcry over the 2006 disclosure that federal agents had investigated dozens of domestic political advocacy groups, the FBI was motivated by concerns that members of the groups might commit crimes and was not spying on them because of their political views, the IG’s report said.
However, the report is sharply critical of the FBI for characterizing certain nonviolent crimes related to protest activities as terrorism. And it attacked the bureau for making a series of “false and misleading statements to the public and to Congress” about its surveillance of an antiwar protest on Nov. 29, 2002.
The FBI was quick to revert to defensive mode. An FBI spokesman, Michael Kortan, said that the report’s most important finding was that after “an exhaustive
review of hundreds of investigative decisions the FBI made after the Sept. 11 attacks,” the IG’s office “did not uncover even a single instance where the FBI targeted any group based on the exercise of a First Amendment right.”
Kortan also said that the report did not suggest “any significant modifications” of the bureau’s investigative powers.
The report involved investigations of antiwar, environmentalist and animal rights groups from the 2001 terrorist attacks through much of the administration
of President George W. Bush.
In its extensive coverage of this report, New York Times writer Charlie Savage led with the report’s First Amendment conclusion. However, it went on to detail actions and activities that the IG found suspect.
For example, in the case of the 2002 Pittsburgh protest, The Times reports that an FBI agent who attended the event filed a two-page account labeled “results of investigation of Pittsburgh antiwar activity.”
It detailed leafleting by people associated with the Thomas Merton Center, The Times wrote, which the agent described as a “left-wing organization” that advocated pacifism, to protest the coming Iraq war.
The account described the leaflets as making such claims as that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and raised questions about whether the center was linked to Muslims.
Thomas Merton (1915-1968) is arguably the most influential American Catholic author of the twentieth century. Pittsburgh’s Thomas Merton Center began in 1972 to protest the continuation of the war in Vietnam. The Center raised funds for medical aid to Indochina and provided information for schools and religious education programs on racism, poverty, and war.
The Times notes that, after the ACLU made the report public, the bureau’s press office told reporters that the agent attended the protest “as a direct result of information provided to the F.B.I. related to an ongoing investigation.”
Later, the FBI director, Robert S. Mueller III, told Congress that the agent was trying to “identify an individual who happened to be, we believed, in attendance at that rally.”
But the inspector general found this story to be false: a supervisor had sent the agent to the protest as a “make-work” assignment to see if any subjects of Pittsburgh terrorism investigations “happened to show up without having any reason to think any of them would be there.”
The Times reports that the agent later told the inspector general’s office that he had gone overboard in carrying out that task because he was a recent hire, and he described the report as “atrocious” and a “horrible mistake,” saying he could “understand why people would become inflamed about it.”
In 2006, officials in the Pittsburgh office apparently came up with the story that the agent had attended the protest in search of a specific individual as part of a terrorism investigation — a false “after-the-fact justification” that
made its way into the press statement and briefing materials for Director Mueller.
The report also criticized several episodes in which it characterized FBI agents as opening or continuing investigations despite scant evidence of a federal crime, and it criticized classifying some nonviolent protest-related actions, like trespassing on a military base, as “terrorism” matters. As a result, it said, some people are being inappropriately put or kept on terrorism watch lists.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Contractors, Contractors Everywhere!
By William Fisher
Three years after private security guards from Blackwater, a private security contractor working for the U.S. Department of State, killed 17 unarmed civilians in Baghdad, a leading human rights advocacy group is charging that not nearly enough has been done to improve oversight and accountability of private contractors abroad.
Its findings and recommendations come in a new report, “State of Affairs: Three Years After Nisoor Square,” issued by Human Rights First. The author of the report, attorney Melina Milazzo, told IPS that “the U.S. government has not done nearly enough to protect innocent civilians from trigger-happy contractors.” She added that it was urgent for Congress and President Obama to take action before the planned increase in the number of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nisoor Square is the major intersection in Baghdad where the killings took place in September 2007. Twenty other unarmed civilians were wounded. The security contractor involved, Blackwater Worldwide -- which later changed its name to Xe Services -- subsequently was expelled from the country by the Iraqi government and banned from working there in the future.
As the U.S. continues its drawdown of troops in Iraq, the Department of State plans to more than double the number of private security contractors it employs from 2,700 to 7,000. An additional 50,000 contractors – primarily working for the Department of Defense (DOD) – will be required to support the Afghan war.
The HRF report acknowledges that the Nisoor Square incident triggered some positive reforms in U.S. law and policy. For example, Congress has mandated greater agency oversight and coordination over private security and other contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Agencies have also, among other things, defined their responsibility for contractor oversight, increased their coordination over contractors, and established common principles governing contractor conduct.
But despite that progress, “serious deficiencies” in U.S. agencies’ reporting, investigation, prosecution and oversight of serious contractor incidents persist. Agencies still do not accurately track the number of contractors and subcontractors fielded abroad. Private contractors already far outnumber U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the report charges.
“Many oversight and accountability gaps persist three years after Nisoor Square, putting civilians at risk and undermining U.S. national security,” said HRF’s Milazzo.
“Congress and the administration must work together to put solutions in place before additional contractors are deployed,” she urged.
Among the report’s 19 recommendations:
Congress should enact the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA) of 2010 (H.R. 4567, S. 2979) to expand criminal jurisdiction over and increase investigative resources for serious crimes committed by U.S. contractors.
Agencies should require oversight bodies to track all serious incidents reported, investigate and remediate when necessary, and maintain all supporting documentation relating to such actions taken.
The Department of Justice should commit additional resources to investigate and prosecute contractor crime and formally announce that prosecution of contractor crime abroad is a Justice Department national priority.
Publication of the HRF report comes barely a week after the NATO command issued new guidelines for awarding billions of dollars worth of international contracts in Afghanistan. A memorandum from U.S. Afghanistan commander David H. Petraeus said that without proper oversight, taxpayer funds earmarked for contractors could end up in the hands of insurgents and criminals.
He added that if “we spend large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, it is likely that some of those funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan."
With proper oversight, “contracting can spur economic development and support the Afghan government and NATO's campaign objectives," Gen. Petraeus wrote in the
Memorandum, which was obtained by the Associated Press.
Afghan and foreign private contractors provide a wide range of services to U.S. and NATO forces – everything from food preparation and service to helping to build large capital projects to providing security escorts to traveling government officials and VIP civilians.
No official figures are available from the U.S. government regarding the exact amount of money paid to contractors. But generally accepted guessestimates put the figure at about $14 billion a year.
Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, has been outspokenly critical of individual contractors and of the international contracting process in general. He has charged that much of the money earmarked for important projects is siphoned off by high-priced contractors, subcontractors and brokers. The result, he has said, is that the Afghan people are being denied the benefits of these projects.
As noted by The New York Times, Afghans also complain that too many contracts are awarded to the same contractors.
This issue was also addressed in Gen. Petraeus’s memorandum. "Contracts with a broader range of Afghan companies will help break monopolies and weaken patronage networks that breed resentment" among the Afghan people, he wrote.
He said, "In situations where there is no alternative to powerbrokers with links to criminal networks, it may be preferable to forgo the project."
The new guidance said that contracts should go to Afghans first and if the military cannot contract with an Afghan company, the company that is awarded the contract should be encouraged to hire Afghan workers and subcontractors.
Blackwater (Xe) recently agreed pay the U.S. Government $42 million for violations that include illegal weapons export to Afghanistan and making unauthorized proposals to train troops in southern Sudan, The New York Times has reported
The company reportedly struck a deal with the U.S. state department to pay the fine in order to avoid criminal charges. This will also allow it to continue to obtain government contracts, including work in Afghanistan.
Xe Services still faces other legal troubles, including the indictment of five former executives on weapons and obstruction charges.
Two former guards have also been charged with murdering two Afghan civilians.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Xe's most recent government contract tasked the group with protecting CIA bases in Afghanistan. The report was confirmed by CIA Director Leon Panetta during a TV interview, the newspaper wrote.
Blackwater (Xe) has become a kind of poster-child for suspect business practices in wartime. During Congressional hearings last year, it was revealed that the company’s chairman, Erik Prince, has long had close financial and ideological ties to the administration of former President George W. Bush.
Three years after private security guards from Blackwater, a private security contractor working for the U.S. Department of State, killed 17 unarmed civilians in Baghdad, a leading human rights advocacy group is charging that not nearly enough has been done to improve oversight and accountability of private contractors abroad.
Its findings and recommendations come in a new report, “State of Affairs: Three Years After Nisoor Square,” issued by Human Rights First. The author of the report, attorney Melina Milazzo, told IPS that “the U.S. government has not done nearly enough to protect innocent civilians from trigger-happy contractors.” She added that it was urgent for Congress and President Obama to take action before the planned increase in the number of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nisoor Square is the major intersection in Baghdad where the killings took place in September 2007. Twenty other unarmed civilians were wounded. The security contractor involved, Blackwater Worldwide -- which later changed its name to Xe Services -- subsequently was expelled from the country by the Iraqi government and banned from working there in the future.
As the U.S. continues its drawdown of troops in Iraq, the Department of State plans to more than double the number of private security contractors it employs from 2,700 to 7,000. An additional 50,000 contractors – primarily working for the Department of Defense (DOD) – will be required to support the Afghan war.
The HRF report acknowledges that the Nisoor Square incident triggered some positive reforms in U.S. law and policy. For example, Congress has mandated greater agency oversight and coordination over private security and other contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Agencies have also, among other things, defined their responsibility for contractor oversight, increased their coordination over contractors, and established common principles governing contractor conduct.
But despite that progress, “serious deficiencies” in U.S. agencies’ reporting, investigation, prosecution and oversight of serious contractor incidents persist. Agencies still do not accurately track the number of contractors and subcontractors fielded abroad. Private contractors already far outnumber U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the report charges.
“Many oversight and accountability gaps persist three years after Nisoor Square, putting civilians at risk and undermining U.S. national security,” said HRF’s Milazzo.
“Congress and the administration must work together to put solutions in place before additional contractors are deployed,” she urged.
Among the report’s 19 recommendations:
Congress should enact the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA) of 2010 (H.R. 4567, S. 2979) to expand criminal jurisdiction over and increase investigative resources for serious crimes committed by U.S. contractors.
Agencies should require oversight bodies to track all serious incidents reported, investigate and remediate when necessary, and maintain all supporting documentation relating to such actions taken.
The Department of Justice should commit additional resources to investigate and prosecute contractor crime and formally announce that prosecution of contractor crime abroad is a Justice Department national priority.
Publication of the HRF report comes barely a week after the NATO command issued new guidelines for awarding billions of dollars worth of international contracts in Afghanistan. A memorandum from U.S. Afghanistan commander David H. Petraeus said that without proper oversight, taxpayer funds earmarked for contractors could end up in the hands of insurgents and criminals.
He added that if “we spend large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, it is likely that some of those funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan."
With proper oversight, “contracting can spur economic development and support the Afghan government and NATO's campaign objectives," Gen. Petraeus wrote in the
Memorandum, which was obtained by the Associated Press.
Afghan and foreign private contractors provide a wide range of services to U.S. and NATO forces – everything from food preparation and service to helping to build large capital projects to providing security escorts to traveling government officials and VIP civilians.
No official figures are available from the U.S. government regarding the exact amount of money paid to contractors. But generally accepted guessestimates put the figure at about $14 billion a year.
Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, has been outspokenly critical of individual contractors and of the international contracting process in general. He has charged that much of the money earmarked for important projects is siphoned off by high-priced contractors, subcontractors and brokers. The result, he has said, is that the Afghan people are being denied the benefits of these projects.
As noted by The New York Times, Afghans also complain that too many contracts are awarded to the same contractors.
This issue was also addressed in Gen. Petraeus’s memorandum. "Contracts with a broader range of Afghan companies will help break monopolies and weaken patronage networks that breed resentment" among the Afghan people, he wrote.
He said, "In situations where there is no alternative to powerbrokers with links to criminal networks, it may be preferable to forgo the project."
The new guidance said that contracts should go to Afghans first and if the military cannot contract with an Afghan company, the company that is awarded the contract should be encouraged to hire Afghan workers and subcontractors.
Blackwater (Xe) recently agreed pay the U.S. Government $42 million for violations that include illegal weapons export to Afghanistan and making unauthorized proposals to train troops in southern Sudan, The New York Times has reported
The company reportedly struck a deal with the U.S. state department to pay the fine in order to avoid criminal charges. This will also allow it to continue to obtain government contracts, including work in Afghanistan.
Xe Services still faces other legal troubles, including the indictment of five former executives on weapons and obstruction charges.
Two former guards have also been charged with murdering two Afghan civilians.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Xe's most recent government contract tasked the group with protecting CIA bases in Afghanistan. The report was confirmed by CIA Director Leon Panetta during a TV interview, the newspaper wrote.
Blackwater (Xe) has become a kind of poster-child for suspect business practices in wartime. During Congressional hearings last year, it was revealed that the company’s chairman, Erik Prince, has long had close financial and ideological ties to the administration of former President George W. Bush.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
One More Shot at Justice
By William Fisher
In a move legal experts are calling unusual, the one-vote court majority that tossed out the lawsuit brought by five men who claim they were tortured under the “extraordinary rendition” program of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency departed from customary practice in suggesting several other ways the victims might obtain justice.
This departure from the judicial norm is being seen by some as an indication of the extent to which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “was
anguished by the treatment alleged by the plaintiffs,” according to Mike Doyle, legal reporter for McClatchy Newspapers.
Writing in his blog, “Suits and Sentences,” Doyle adds, “Another remarkable aspect of this split decision was the decision by the five dissenters to publish a 58-page appendix, spelling out the publicly available
evidence.”
The suit has gone through several years of litigation before various federal courts. Following yesterday’s narrow dismissal, the case is now headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been more than 50 years since the Supreme Court issued a major ruling on the state secrets privilege.
The case accused Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. of participating in the Bush administration's “extraordinary rendition program.” Under this program, terrorism suspects are kidnapped from a location, turned over to intelligence services in another country, where they are imprisoned, abused and tortured.
The suit charged that Jeppesen “knowingly participated in these renditions by providing critical flight planning and logistical support services to aircraft and crews used by the CIA to forcibly disappear these five men to torture, detention and interrogation.”
According to published reports cited by the ACLU, “Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal corporate meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated, ‘We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way’."
The Bush administration intervened in the case, asserting the "state secrets" privilege in an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out and preventing the evidence – including evidence already in the public domain – from ever heard in court.
In April 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government must invoke the state secrets privilege with respect to specific pieces of evidence – not over an entire lawsuit. The Obama administration, following exactly the same legal reasoning as its predecessor, appealed that ruling, and in December the appeal was heard by an en banc panel of all 11 Ninth Circuit judges. The result was yesterday’s decision.
According to the ACLU, that ruling “all but shuts the door on accountability for the illegal program.” The ACLU intends to seek Supreme Court review of the decision.
The majority decision, written by Judge Raymond Fisher, states, “This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security. Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them.”
However, Judge Fisher continued, “That the judicial branch may have deferred to the executive branch’s claim of privilege in the interest of national security does not preclude the government from honoring the fundamental principles of justice."
The opinion cited reparations made to Japanese-Americans interred during World War II as an example. It also suggested that Congress should investigate the torture allegations, reminded the plaintiffs that Congress has the power to pass private bills aiding individuals, and noted that Congress could also enact remedial legislation.
Ben Wizner, a senior ACLU lawyer who argued the case before the appeals court, said the group was disappointed in the ruling. “The world is watching closely to see whether torture victims will have any possibility of redress in U.S. courts. If the answer is no – if this decision is allowed to stand – then foreign judges and prosecutors will almost certainly reinvigorate their own criminal investigations into illegal U.S. practices,” he told IPS.
He added, “To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court,” he said. “That makes this a sad day not only for the torture survivors who are seeking justice in this case, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. If this decision stands, the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”
Once little-used, the state secrets doctrine became a favorite tactic of the Bush Administration to keep its national security cases out of court and away from judicial review. In 2007, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a similar rendition and torture ruling by the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia.
According to The New York Times, “The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.”
It added, “The Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program . . . .”
When he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, and later as a candidate for president, Obama was sharply critical of the Bush administration’s use of the state-secrets privilege. His administration began channeling Bush Administration policies during its first few weeks.
Many view the current actions of the Obama Administration as part of its assertion of increased authority by the Executive Branch of Government.
In a move legal experts are calling unusual, the one-vote court majority that tossed out the lawsuit brought by five men who claim they were tortured under the “extraordinary rendition” program of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency departed from customary practice in suggesting several other ways the victims might obtain justice.
This departure from the judicial norm is being seen by some as an indication of the extent to which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “was
anguished by the treatment alleged by the plaintiffs,” according to Mike Doyle, legal reporter for McClatchy Newspapers.
Writing in his blog, “Suits and Sentences,” Doyle adds, “Another remarkable aspect of this split decision was the decision by the five dissenters to publish a 58-page appendix, spelling out the publicly available
evidence.”
The suit has gone through several years of litigation before various federal courts. Following yesterday’s narrow dismissal, the case is now headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been more than 50 years since the Supreme Court issued a major ruling on the state secrets privilege.
The case accused Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. of participating in the Bush administration's “extraordinary rendition program.” Under this program, terrorism suspects are kidnapped from a location, turned over to intelligence services in another country, where they are imprisoned, abused and tortured.
The suit charged that Jeppesen “knowingly participated in these renditions by providing critical flight planning and logistical support services to aircraft and crews used by the CIA to forcibly disappear these five men to torture, detention and interrogation.”
According to published reports cited by the ACLU, “Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal corporate meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated, ‘We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way’."
The Bush administration intervened in the case, asserting the "state secrets" privilege in an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out and preventing the evidence – including evidence already in the public domain – from ever heard in court.
In April 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government must invoke the state secrets privilege with respect to specific pieces of evidence – not over an entire lawsuit. The Obama administration, following exactly the same legal reasoning as its predecessor, appealed that ruling, and in December the appeal was heard by an en banc panel of all 11 Ninth Circuit judges. The result was yesterday’s decision.
According to the ACLU, that ruling “all but shuts the door on accountability for the illegal program.” The ACLU intends to seek Supreme Court review of the decision.
The majority decision, written by Judge Raymond Fisher, states, “This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security. Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them.”
However, Judge Fisher continued, “That the judicial branch may have deferred to the executive branch’s claim of privilege in the interest of national security does not preclude the government from honoring the fundamental principles of justice."
The opinion cited reparations made to Japanese-Americans interred during World War II as an example. It also suggested that Congress should investigate the torture allegations, reminded the plaintiffs that Congress has the power to pass private bills aiding individuals, and noted that Congress could also enact remedial legislation.
Ben Wizner, a senior ACLU lawyer who argued the case before the appeals court, said the group was disappointed in the ruling. “The world is watching closely to see whether torture victims will have any possibility of redress in U.S. courts. If the answer is no – if this decision is allowed to stand – then foreign judges and prosecutors will almost certainly reinvigorate their own criminal investigations into illegal U.S. practices,” he told IPS.
He added, “To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court,” he said. “That makes this a sad day not only for the torture survivors who are seeking justice in this case, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. If this decision stands, the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”
Once little-used, the state secrets doctrine became a favorite tactic of the Bush Administration to keep its national security cases out of court and away from judicial review. In 2007, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a similar rendition and torture ruling by the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia.
According to The New York Times, “The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.”
It added, “The Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program . . . .”
When he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois, and later as a candidate for president, Obama was sharply critical of the Bush administration’s use of the state-secrets privilege. His administration began channeling Bush Administration policies during its first few weeks.
Many view the current actions of the Obama Administration as part of its assertion of increased authority by the Executive Branch of Government.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
ACLU, CCR SUE GOVT OVER ‘TARGETED KILLINGS’
By William Fisher
Two of the nation’s most influential human rights organizations have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to carry out “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charge that the authority contemplated by the Obama administration is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow.
The organizations claim that, “outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military ‘kill lists’ through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats.”
The CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring the lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have marked for death. The complaint asks a court to rule that using lethal force far from any battlefield and without judicial process is illegal in all but the narrowest circumstances and to prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings except in compliance with these standards. It also asks the court to order the government to disclose the standards it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
al-Awlaki, 39, was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is an Islamic lecturer who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen. He is a spiritual leader and former imam who has purportedly inspired Islamic terrorists. His sermons are said to have been attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers.
Today’s lawsuit was filed against the CIA, Defense Department and the president in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to today’s legal complaint, the government has not disclosed the
standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of
U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the
American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.
“The United States cannot simply execute people, including its own citizens,
anywhere in the world based on its own say-so,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of CCR. “The law prohibits the government from killing without trial or conviction other than in the face of an imminent threat that leaves no time for deliberation or due process. That the government adds people to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and leaves them on the lists for months at a time flies in the face of the Constitution and international law.”
The groups charge that targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged – without oversight, judicial process or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists – also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.
But a top Obama counterterrorism official is defending the government's right to target U.S. citizens perceived as terror threats for capture or killing, citing al-Awlaki as an example.
Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, does not say whether al-Awlaki is on a U.S. targeting list, but a senior U.S. counterterrorism official has previously confirmed that the cleric is among terror targets sought to be captured or killed.
What does the law say about targeting and killing people?
Much of the discussion thus far has been about the Constitutionality of such killings. But, counter-intuitively, the Constitution is not the primary engine. It is largely the laws of war that are in play here.
Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First (HRF) explains to IPS, “Whether the target is a citizen isn't so important, because he's targetable if he's an enemy belligerent or civilian who's directly participating in hostilities against the United States.”
She adds, “The problem with the government's drone program is that it hasn't provided the public with enough information to determine whether the government is complying with those legal requirements. The fact that someone is suspected of having ties to al Qaeda or even supporting al Qaeda does not make them a member of a foreign force fighting the United States, or someone directly participating in hostilities against the United States.”
“Until the U.S. starts providing information about not only who they're targeting but what evidence exists that this person is a legitimate target, then we can't know if what they're doing is legal,” she says.
Scott Horton, a constitutional lawyer and contributing editor at Harper's Magazine, tells IPS, “There are two ways the government can justify the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen: one is when the person is in the act of a crime that threatens the lives of others, or serious injury to them, and no other means exists to stop him; the other is in the context of a war.”
“The Obama Administration appears to think that the second case is applicable with respect to Al-Awlaki, but if they have evidence to prove it, they certainly haven't advanced it to the public,” he says.
But even if they have such evidence, he adds, “they haven't explained why they don't simply have him arrested and brought back to stand charges based on the crimes they believe he has committed, which appear to include terrorist activities and perhaps treason. They obviously need to explain why that approach won't work before they go dropping bombs in circumstances that might kill large numbers of innocent civilians in addition to killing Al-Awlaki, “Horton tells IPS.
Col. Morris Davis, the Defense Department's former chief prosecutor for terrorism cases who argued on behalf of a terrorism suspect that the military justice system has been corrupted by politics and inappropriate influence from senior Pentagon officials, tells IPS:
“The 5th Amendment says U.S. citizens can’t be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ If the Constitution prohibits the government from taking your house without giving you a hearing and the opportunity to defend yourself it seems rather ironic that they might take your life with even less formality and less process.”
Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer and contributor to Salon.com, is similarly troubled by the targeting policy. He concludes: “We really are talking about a President who believes he has the right to send the CIA to murder American citizens based purely on allegations and suspicions of wrongdoing.”
Two of the nation’s most influential human rights organizations have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to carry out “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charge that the authority contemplated by the Obama administration is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow.
The organizations claim that, “outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military ‘kill lists’ through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats.”
The CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring the lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have marked for death. The complaint asks a court to rule that using lethal force far from any battlefield and without judicial process is illegal in all but the narrowest circumstances and to prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings except in compliance with these standards. It also asks the court to order the government to disclose the standards it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
al-Awlaki, 39, was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is an Islamic lecturer who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen. He is a spiritual leader and former imam who has purportedly inspired Islamic terrorists. His sermons are said to have been attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers.
Today’s lawsuit was filed against the CIA, Defense Department and the president in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to today’s legal complaint, the government has not disclosed the
standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of
U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the
American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.
“The United States cannot simply execute people, including its own citizens,
anywhere in the world based on its own say-so,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of CCR. “The law prohibits the government from killing without trial or conviction other than in the face of an imminent threat that leaves no time for deliberation or due process. That the government adds people to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and leaves them on the lists for months at a time flies in the face of the Constitution and international law.”
The groups charge that targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged – without oversight, judicial process or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists – also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.
But a top Obama counterterrorism official is defending the government's right to target U.S. citizens perceived as terror threats for capture or killing, citing al-Awlaki as an example.
Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, does not say whether al-Awlaki is on a U.S. targeting list, but a senior U.S. counterterrorism official has previously confirmed that the cleric is among terror targets sought to be captured or killed.
What does the law say about targeting and killing people?
Much of the discussion thus far has been about the Constitutionality of such killings. But, counter-intuitively, the Constitution is not the primary engine. It is largely the laws of war that are in play here.
Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First (HRF) explains to IPS, “Whether the target is a citizen isn't so important, because he's targetable if he's an enemy belligerent or civilian who's directly participating in hostilities against the United States.”
She adds, “The problem with the government's drone program is that it hasn't provided the public with enough information to determine whether the government is complying with those legal requirements. The fact that someone is suspected of having ties to al Qaeda or even supporting al Qaeda does not make them a member of a foreign force fighting the United States, or someone directly participating in hostilities against the United States.”
“Until the U.S. starts providing information about not only who they're targeting but what evidence exists that this person is a legitimate target, then we can't know if what they're doing is legal,” she says.
Scott Horton, a constitutional lawyer and contributing editor at Harper's Magazine, tells IPS, “There are two ways the government can justify the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen: one is when the person is in the act of a crime that threatens the lives of others, or serious injury to them, and no other means exists to stop him; the other is in the context of a war.”
“The Obama Administration appears to think that the second case is applicable with respect to Al-Awlaki, but if they have evidence to prove it, they certainly haven't advanced it to the public,” he says.
But even if they have such evidence, he adds, “they haven't explained why they don't simply have him arrested and brought back to stand charges based on the crimes they believe he has committed, which appear to include terrorist activities and perhaps treason. They obviously need to explain why that approach won't work before they go dropping bombs in circumstances that might kill large numbers of innocent civilians in addition to killing Al-Awlaki, “Horton tells IPS.
Col. Morris Davis, the Defense Department's former chief prosecutor for terrorism cases who argued on behalf of a terrorism suspect that the military justice system has been corrupted by politics and inappropriate influence from senior Pentagon officials, tells IPS:
“The 5th Amendment says U.S. citizens can’t be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ If the Constitution prohibits the government from taking your house without giving you a hearing and the opportunity to defend yourself it seems rather ironic that they might take your life with even less formality and less process.”
Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer and contributor to Salon.com, is similarly troubled by the targeting policy. He concludes: “We really are talking about a President who believes he has the right to send the CIA to murder American citizens based purely on allegations and suspicions of wrongdoing.”
THE FUTURE OF COAL ASH
By William Fisher
In what promises to be a contentious, high-profile series of debates, the forces of environmental protection will be lining up against those of the electric power industry over the future status of coal ash.
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today to regulate toxic ash from coal-fired power plants as a hazardous waste. Industry spokespeople are claiming that Federal enforcement of coal-ash disposal rules would mean classifying the waste as hazardous, adding, costs and making it harder to recycle some of the waste to help hold down disposal costs.
Erich Pica of the advocacy group Friends of the Earth told an EPA panel that the December 2008 coal ash spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant was a graphic reminder that there are no federally enforceable standards for coal ash. The spill involved 5.4 million cubic yards of the substance.
"It's time the EPA begin to regulate coal ash as a toxic pollutant," Pica said at a public hearing.
The EPA is considering adopting the first-ever federal standards for the disposal of coal ash. Opponents of that position are pushing for coal ash to be regulated as a nonhazardous material with enforcement remaining in the hands of individual states. Environmental groups say the states have failed to protect the public and that the EPA should set a national standard and enforce it.
Yesterday’s hearing, held in Alexandria, Virginia, on the proposed federal rules is the first of seven that will be held across the country over the next month.
Scott Schlesinger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, one of yesterday’s witnesses, wrote in his blog:
“What happens to the toxics that utilities remove from their stacks that used to pollute our skies? They now pollute our waters. During the past 30 years, the pollutants that used to go up the stack are now collected in ash. Administrations have been prodded by NRDC lawsuits to regulate these toxic wastes and have found excuses not to do so.”
He added, “Now, with new technology that better predicts the high levels of these toxics reaching groundwater, EPA has come forward with a plan to regulate coal ash and its metal components of arsenic, mercury, lead, antimony, and other toxic metals.”
A study released last week reveals that 39 sites in 21 states where coal-fired power plants dump their coal ash are contaminating water with toxic metals such as arsenic and other pollutants. The study reports that the problem is more extensive than previously estimated. The report shows that, even contained, stored ash can have led to water contamination and negative health impacts.
The electric power industry is lobbying to keep regulation up to individual
states.
But Jeff Stant of the Environmental Integrity Project, director of the study, contends, "This is a huge and very real public health issue for Americans. Coal ash is putting drinking water around these sites at risk."
Most states don't require monitoring of drinking water near the waste sites. The study found five sites where monitoring figures were available, and all of them had some contamination. In four, tests showed problems at one or more drinking-water wells. In Joliet, Ill., where the information was too limited for analysis, at least 18 nearby wells were closed because of boron contamination, the report said.
The U.S. burns more than 1 billion tons of coal a year to generate about half of the nation's electricity. It ends up with at least 125 million tons of coal
waste, including ash and the sludge left from scrubbers that remove air
pollutants.
The report from the environmental groups said that more than a third of the
reused coal ash is for structural fill or to fill up empty mines. The report
said those uses could result in water contamination.
The report, by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, documents 39 additional coal-ash dump sites in 21 states that are contaminating drinking water or surface water with arsenic and other heavy metals.
Experts from those groups found that, at every one of the coal-ash dump sites equipped with groundwater monitoring wells, concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic or lead exceeded federal health-based standards for drinking water, with concentrations at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania reaching as high as 341 times the federal standard for arsenic.
This new report comes after a February 2010 report by Environmental Integrity and Earthjustice that documented water contamination from 31 coal-ash dump sites in 14 states. The report documents 39 additional coal-ash dump sites in 21 states that are contaminating drinking water or surface water with arsenic and other heavy metals.
Experts from those groups found that, at every one of the coal-ash dump sites equipped with groundwater monitoring wells, concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic or lead exceeded federal health-based standards for drinking water, with concentrations at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania reaching as high as 341 times the federal standard for arsenic.
This new report comes after a February 2010 report by Environmental Integrity and Earthjustice that documented water contamination from 31 coal-ash dump sites in 14 states. It also adds to the nearly 70 other sites previously identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lisa Evans, senior administrative counsel at Earthjustice, said: “There is no greater reason for coal ash regulation than preventing the poisoning of our water. We now have 39 more good reasons for a national coal ash rule. the mounting number of contaminated sites demonstrates that the states are unable or unwilling to solve this problem.”
Environmental groups want to see the Obama EPA take a more aggressive stance, and choose to more closely regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.
Jeff Stant, director of the Environmental Integrity Project’s Coal Combustion Waste Initiative, said:
“The contamination of water supplies, threats to people, and damage to the
environment documented in this report illustrate very real and dangerous harms that are prohibited by federal law but are going on in a largely unchecked fashion at today’s coal ash dump sites. Contamination of the environment and water supplies with toxic levels of arsenic, lead and other chemicals is a pervasive reality at America’s coal ash disposal sites because states are not preventing it.”
In what promises to be a contentious, high-profile series of debates, the forces of environmental protection will be lining up against those of the electric power industry over the future status of coal ash.
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today to regulate toxic ash from coal-fired power plants as a hazardous waste. Industry spokespeople are claiming that Federal enforcement of coal-ash disposal rules would mean classifying the waste as hazardous, adding, costs and making it harder to recycle some of the waste to help hold down disposal costs.
Erich Pica of the advocacy group Friends of the Earth told an EPA panel that the December 2008 coal ash spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant was a graphic reminder that there are no federally enforceable standards for coal ash. The spill involved 5.4 million cubic yards of the substance.
"It's time the EPA begin to regulate coal ash as a toxic pollutant," Pica said at a public hearing.
The EPA is considering adopting the first-ever federal standards for the disposal of coal ash. Opponents of that position are pushing for coal ash to be regulated as a nonhazardous material with enforcement remaining in the hands of individual states. Environmental groups say the states have failed to protect the public and that the EPA should set a national standard and enforce it.
Yesterday’s hearing, held in Alexandria, Virginia, on the proposed federal rules is the first of seven that will be held across the country over the next month.
Scott Schlesinger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, one of yesterday’s witnesses, wrote in his blog:
“What happens to the toxics that utilities remove from their stacks that used to pollute our skies? They now pollute our waters. During the past 30 years, the pollutants that used to go up the stack are now collected in ash. Administrations have been prodded by NRDC lawsuits to regulate these toxic wastes and have found excuses not to do so.”
He added, “Now, with new technology that better predicts the high levels of these toxics reaching groundwater, EPA has come forward with a plan to regulate coal ash and its metal components of arsenic, mercury, lead, antimony, and other toxic metals.”
A study released last week reveals that 39 sites in 21 states where coal-fired power plants dump their coal ash are contaminating water with toxic metals such as arsenic and other pollutants. The study reports that the problem is more extensive than previously estimated. The report shows that, even contained, stored ash can have led to water contamination and negative health impacts.
The electric power industry is lobbying to keep regulation up to individual
states.
But Jeff Stant of the Environmental Integrity Project, director of the study, contends, "This is a huge and very real public health issue for Americans. Coal ash is putting drinking water around these sites at risk."
Most states don't require monitoring of drinking water near the waste sites. The study found five sites where monitoring figures were available, and all of them had some contamination. In four, tests showed problems at one or more drinking-water wells. In Joliet, Ill., where the information was too limited for analysis, at least 18 nearby wells were closed because of boron contamination, the report said.
The U.S. burns more than 1 billion tons of coal a year to generate about half of the nation's electricity. It ends up with at least 125 million tons of coal
waste, including ash and the sludge left from scrubbers that remove air
pollutants.
The report from the environmental groups said that more than a third of the
reused coal ash is for structural fill or to fill up empty mines. The report
said those uses could result in water contamination.
The report, by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, documents 39 additional coal-ash dump sites in 21 states that are contaminating drinking water or surface water with arsenic and other heavy metals.
Experts from those groups found that, at every one of the coal-ash dump sites equipped with groundwater monitoring wells, concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic or lead exceeded federal health-based standards for drinking water, with concentrations at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania reaching as high as 341 times the federal standard for arsenic.
This new report comes after a February 2010 report by Environmental Integrity and Earthjustice that documented water contamination from 31 coal-ash dump sites in 14 states. The report documents 39 additional coal-ash dump sites in 21 states that are contaminating drinking water or surface water with arsenic and other heavy metals.
Experts from those groups found that, at every one of the coal-ash dump sites equipped with groundwater monitoring wells, concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic or lead exceeded federal health-based standards for drinking water, with concentrations at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania reaching as high as 341 times the federal standard for arsenic.
This new report comes after a February 2010 report by Environmental Integrity and Earthjustice that documented water contamination from 31 coal-ash dump sites in 14 states. It also adds to the nearly 70 other sites previously identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lisa Evans, senior administrative counsel at Earthjustice, said: “There is no greater reason for coal ash regulation than preventing the poisoning of our water. We now have 39 more good reasons for a national coal ash rule. the mounting number of contaminated sites demonstrates that the states are unable or unwilling to solve this problem.”
Environmental groups want to see the Obama EPA take a more aggressive stance, and choose to more closely regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.
Jeff Stant, director of the Environmental Integrity Project’s Coal Combustion Waste Initiative, said:
“The contamination of water supplies, threats to people, and damage to the
environment documented in this report illustrate very real and dangerous harms that are prohibited by federal law but are going on in a largely unchecked fashion at today’s coal ash dump sites. Contamination of the environment and water supplies with toxic levels of arsenic, lead and other chemicals is a pervasive reality at America’s coal ash disposal sites because states are not preventing it.”
Friday, August 27, 2010
America’s Self-Assessment
By William Fisher
In the first ever U.N.-mandated self-assessment of America’s human rights record, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and to “fixing our broken immigration system.”
But the report also acknowledges the need for improvement in several key areas, including racial justice, women's rights, LGBT rights and discrimination against Muslims and Americans of South Asian and Arab descent.
And civil liberties advocate groups say the report neglects to address other key areas where the U.S. has failed to meet its human rights obligations, including felon disfranchisement, inhumane prison conditions, racial disparities in the death penalty system and deaths and abuse in immigration detention.
These groups also note that the report defends the use of military commissions to try terrorism suspects. They say military commissions pose significant human and civil rights violations.
The report, delivered to the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva and released by the U.S. State Department, describes the “great strides” the U.S. has made toward ensuring equality of the law for all Americans. The report also acknowledges that work remains to be done.
The report was prepared following a series of consultative sessions between January and April involving federal agencies and civil society organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Human Rights First.
Its compilation is part of the “universal periodic review” (UPR) process in which the HRC probes every U.N. member-state’s human rights record once every four years.
The United States’ UPR is set for Nov. 5, when administration representatives will take part in a three-hour “interactive dialogue” with HRC members in Geneva, based on this report as well as others submitted by U.N. experts and civil society groups.
A “troika” of countries, chosen by lot, will then draw up a document of
recommendations arising from the dialogue session, for the full HRC to “adopt” on Nov. 9.
The troika overseeing the U.S. UPR comprises France, Japan and Cameroon.
While France and Japan are free democracies, Cameroon is one of 13 countries on the 47-member HRC that are ranked “not free” by democracy watchdog Freedom House based on its political freedoms and civil liberties. (The other 12 “not free” members are Angola, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Gabon, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mauritania, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia.)
Cameroon is also one of 18 council members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which has drawn fire for an agenda at the HRC characterized by a strong anti-Israel bias and attempts to outlaw religious “defamation.”
The presence and conduct of countries with widely-criticized human rights
records was a key reason cited by the Bush administration for shunning the HRC, but President Obama made engagement with the body a priority. The U.S. was elected onto the council in May 2009.
“Some may say that by participating [in the UPR process] we acknowledge
commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights,” the
administration said in the report released on Monday. “We do not. There is no comparison between American democracy and repressive regimes.”
“For us, the primary value of this report is not as a diagnosis, but rather as a
roadmap for our ongoing work within our democratic system to achieve lasting change,” it said.
The ACLU and another organization involved during the earlier consultations, Human Rights First, both welcomed release of the review on Monday – but with qualifications.
Jamil Dakwar, head of the ACLU’s civil rights program, told IPS, “While we welcome the Obama administration’s report and participation in this process and willingness to improve in certain areas, it is disappointing that the report neglected to address other significant problems that were raised in the consultations with civil society. In order to lead by example on human rights, the United States must commit to fixing all domestic human rights abuses – not just the ones that are most
He added, “It is time for the U.S. to match its human rights rhetoric with concrete domestic policies and actions and create a human rights culture and
infrastructure that promote American values of equality and justice for all.”
The ACLU said the report neglected some areas, including “inhumane prison conditions” and “racial disparities in the death penalty system.”
Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First called the administration’s participation in the UPR process “an important step in rebuilding U.S. human rights leadership.”
But he added that the organization was disappointed that the report did not
reflect more serious consideration of concerns raised and recommendations made by civil society groups during the consultations.
State Department spokesman Philip Crowley responded: “The review featured an unprecedented level of consultation and engagement with civil society across our country, providing an opportunity to reflect on our human rights record. “We hope it will serve as an example for other countries to follow.”
The report highlighted extensive protections in U.S. law and practice for human rights as well as several important steps recently taken to improve human rights and U.S. adherence to international standards including:
Issuance of Executive Order 13491 on Ensuring Lawful Interrogation which ended the use of secret cruel interrogation techniques and closed secret CIA prisons; continued commitment to close Guantánamo Bay and to the premise that there are no "law-free zones;" revised parole guidelines for individuals in expedited deportation proceedings found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture; and enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 bolstering the U.S. government's ability to prosecute hate crimes, including those motivated by animus based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
The UNHRC will review the U.S. report in November.
In the first ever U.N.-mandated self-assessment of America’s human rights record, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and to “fixing our broken immigration system.”
But the report also acknowledges the need for improvement in several key areas, including racial justice, women's rights, LGBT rights and discrimination against Muslims and Americans of South Asian and Arab descent.
And civil liberties advocate groups say the report neglects to address other key areas where the U.S. has failed to meet its human rights obligations, including felon disfranchisement, inhumane prison conditions, racial disparities in the death penalty system and deaths and abuse in immigration detention.
These groups also note that the report defends the use of military commissions to try terrorism suspects. They say military commissions pose significant human and civil rights violations.
The report, delivered to the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva and released by the U.S. State Department, describes the “great strides” the U.S. has made toward ensuring equality of the law for all Americans. The report also acknowledges that work remains to be done.
The report was prepared following a series of consultative sessions between January and April involving federal agencies and civil society organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Human Rights First.
Its compilation is part of the “universal periodic review” (UPR) process in which the HRC probes every U.N. member-state’s human rights record once every four years.
The United States’ UPR is set for Nov. 5, when administration representatives will take part in a three-hour “interactive dialogue” with HRC members in Geneva, based on this report as well as others submitted by U.N. experts and civil society groups.
A “troika” of countries, chosen by lot, will then draw up a document of
recommendations arising from the dialogue session, for the full HRC to “adopt” on Nov. 9.
The troika overseeing the U.S. UPR comprises France, Japan and Cameroon.
While France and Japan are free democracies, Cameroon is one of 13 countries on the 47-member HRC that are ranked “not free” by democracy watchdog Freedom House based on its political freedoms and civil liberties. (The other 12 “not free” members are Angola, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Gabon, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mauritania, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia.)
Cameroon is also one of 18 council members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which has drawn fire for an agenda at the HRC characterized by a strong anti-Israel bias and attempts to outlaw religious “defamation.”
The presence and conduct of countries with widely-criticized human rights
records was a key reason cited by the Bush administration for shunning the HRC, but President Obama made engagement with the body a priority. The U.S. was elected onto the council in May 2009.
“Some may say that by participating [in the UPR process] we acknowledge
commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights,” the
administration said in the report released on Monday. “We do not. There is no comparison between American democracy and repressive regimes.”
“For us, the primary value of this report is not as a diagnosis, but rather as a
roadmap for our ongoing work within our democratic system to achieve lasting change,” it said.
The ACLU and another organization involved during the earlier consultations, Human Rights First, both welcomed release of the review on Monday – but with qualifications.
Jamil Dakwar, head of the ACLU’s civil rights program, told IPS, “While we welcome the Obama administration’s report and participation in this process and willingness to improve in certain areas, it is disappointing that the report neglected to address other significant problems that were raised in the consultations with civil society. In order to lead by example on human rights, the United States must commit to fixing all domestic human rights abuses – not just the ones that are most
He added, “It is time for the U.S. to match its human rights rhetoric with concrete domestic policies and actions and create a human rights culture and
infrastructure that promote American values of equality and justice for all.”
The ACLU said the report neglected some areas, including “inhumane prison conditions” and “racial disparities in the death penalty system.”
Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First called the administration’s participation in the UPR process “an important step in rebuilding U.S. human rights leadership.”
But he added that the organization was disappointed that the report did not
reflect more serious consideration of concerns raised and recommendations made by civil society groups during the consultations.
State Department spokesman Philip Crowley responded: “The review featured an unprecedented level of consultation and engagement with civil society across our country, providing an opportunity to reflect on our human rights record. “We hope it will serve as an example for other countries to follow.”
The report highlighted extensive protections in U.S. law and practice for human rights as well as several important steps recently taken to improve human rights and U.S. adherence to international standards including:
Issuance of Executive Order 13491 on Ensuring Lawful Interrogation which ended the use of secret cruel interrogation techniques and closed secret CIA prisons; continued commitment to close Guantánamo Bay and to the premise that there are no "law-free zones;" revised parole guidelines for individuals in expedited deportation proceedings found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture; and enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 bolstering the U.S. government's ability to prosecute hate crimes, including those motivated by animus based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
The UNHRC will review the U.S. report in November.
Is This The Next Gulf Spill?
By William Fisher
With cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico barely underway, energy companies are already assuming the crouching stance in anticipation of a no-holds-barred attack by environmentalists on what the industry says is the next major breakthrough in natural resource extraction.
The breakthrough is called fracking -- short for hydraulic fracturing -- the process of injecting water and chemicals into reservoirs to fracture rock and free up gas and oil.
Critics say fracking can poison water supplies. They also say it uses large amounts of fresh water and generates large amounts of wastewater with limited disposal options. Hydraulic fracturing injects high volumes of water, chemicals and particles underground to create fractures through which gas can flow for collection.
According to the industry, fracturing has been used in roughly 90 percent of wells in operation today and 60 to 80 percent of new wells will require fracturing to remain viable. The industry contends the process is safe.
But hydraulic fracturing operations have been linked to environmental risks that could have significant financial implications for the companies involved and are leading to increased regulatory scrutiny.
Congress has directed the EPA to study the potential impact of fracking on drinking water, human health and the environment after complaints by residents were seen on the television program, “Sixty Minutes.”
The publicity also captured the attention of shareholder groups, which filed proposals this year affecting a dozen companies involved in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in which they requested more disclosure on risks.
The fracturing operations involve the movement, storage, and disposal of millions of gallons of water and thousands to tens of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals.
But because of a lack of transparency, it can be very difficult to learn what chemicals are used by companies. Spills, regulatory penalties, and litigation linked to fracturing operations in been reported in several states where natural gas companies are active. Response votes were very favorable, the groups say.
Of 12 proposals filed, six went to a shareholder proxy vote and were supported by between 21 percent and 42 percent of shareholders.
“We are pleased with the kind of votes we received at the proxy season,” says Larisa Ruoff of Green Century Capital Management, a Boston investment advisory firm focused on environmentally responsible investing. “With the resolution that went to a vote, we’re pleased with the amount of shareholder support for a first-year environmental proposal. In general, most of the votes were incredibly strong.”
Consumer and industry interest has been running so high that the EPA was forced forced to postpone its fourth and final hearing for security reasons.
The decision came less than 24 hours after the agency announced it was moving its hearing from Binghamton University 65 miles north to a Syracuse, New York, convention center.
The EPA criticized Binghamton University, saying the university wanted to raise the amount it was charging from $6,000 to $40,000.
The university said it anticipated as many as 8,000 people and rallies by environmental groups and drilling supporters, which would have required a switch to a bigger campus venue and hiked insurance and security costs.
A new date and location haven’t been set.
The hearing is the fourth and last by the EPA around the country as it prepares to launch a study of hydraulic fracturing,
The hearings are intended to help shape the scope of the study.
Previous hearings were held in Fort Worth, Texas; Denver; and Canonsburg, Pa. The Pennsylvania hearing drew more than 1,200 participants.
The EPA is studying hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as gas drillers swarm to the lucrative Marcellus Shale region primarily beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio and blast into other shale reserves around the country.
With public input submitted in writing or at the four public meetings, the EPA had planned to complete the study’s design by September, initiate it in January and have initial study results available by late 2012.
Hydraulic Fracturing has drawn the attnetion of Green Century Capital Management, an environmentally responsible investment advisory firm in Boston, and a number of like-minded investment firms.They are coordinating an investor campaign in the United States to promote improved disclosure by natural gas companies about the business and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing.
The shareholder proposals, filed with 12 companies, asked each to report on the environmental impact of the company’s hydraulic fracturing operations and for a discussion of the potential policies the company could adopt, above and beyond regulatory requirements, to reduce or eliminate hazards to air, water and soil quality from those activities.
Investors contend that recent events make this disclosure more important than ever. Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ordered EOG Resources to suspend drilling in the state after a blowout at a company well. According to the DEP, “the incident presented a serious threat to life and property.” At EOG’s annual meeting in April, over 30 percent of the shares voted supported the proposal.
Media attention to fracturing and levels of public concern about potential environmental impacts have skyrocketed since 2007.
In June, Sixty Minutes broadcast a story on fracking which left the viewer largely uninformed about what chemicals were being blasted into the ground.
Then a documentary filmmaker, John Fox, took up the issue. His film, “Gasland,” is now available on HBO. It chronicles the recent catastrophic BP oil spill and the environmental effects of the energy industry's efforts to extract natural resources. Fox traveled the country exposing what he says are the unsafe drilling practices of the natural gas industry and its detrimental effects on the environment and communities.
In communities where fracking is a common occurrence, negative effects were common, he says - sick communities where cancer rates were abnormally high, water that could be lit on fire, not to mention generally unsafe drinking water, animals losing hair, and much more. According to Fox, there are 450,000 of these gas wells across the country, with a proposal for 100,000 more in New York and 100,000 in Pennsylvania.
Not surprisingly, the natural gas industry sees things quite differently.
America's Natural Gas Alliance, an industry lobbying group, says the flammable water in Fox's film occurred because the home owner's water well was drilled into a "natural gas pocket." They say another damning scene in the film, in which Fox blames natural gas drilling for a massive fish kill, was also misplaced. An EPA report, they claim, blames coal mine runoff, not natural gas drilling.
With cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico barely underway, energy companies are already assuming the crouching stance in anticipation of a no-holds-barred attack by environmentalists on what the industry says is the next major breakthrough in natural resource extraction.
The breakthrough is called fracking -- short for hydraulic fracturing -- the process of injecting water and chemicals into reservoirs to fracture rock and free up gas and oil.
Critics say fracking can poison water supplies. They also say it uses large amounts of fresh water and generates large amounts of wastewater with limited disposal options. Hydraulic fracturing injects high volumes of water, chemicals and particles underground to create fractures through which gas can flow for collection.
According to the industry, fracturing has been used in roughly 90 percent of wells in operation today and 60 to 80 percent of new wells will require fracturing to remain viable. The industry contends the process is safe.
But hydraulic fracturing operations have been linked to environmental risks that could have significant financial implications for the companies involved and are leading to increased regulatory scrutiny.
Congress has directed the EPA to study the potential impact of fracking on drinking water, human health and the environment after complaints by residents were seen on the television program, “Sixty Minutes.”
The publicity also captured the attention of shareholder groups, which filed proposals this year affecting a dozen companies involved in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in which they requested more disclosure on risks.
The fracturing operations involve the movement, storage, and disposal of millions of gallons of water and thousands to tens of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals.
But because of a lack of transparency, it can be very difficult to learn what chemicals are used by companies. Spills, regulatory penalties, and litigation linked to fracturing operations in been reported in several states where natural gas companies are active. Response votes were very favorable, the groups say.
Of 12 proposals filed, six went to a shareholder proxy vote and were supported by between 21 percent and 42 percent of shareholders.
“We are pleased with the kind of votes we received at the proxy season,” says Larisa Ruoff of Green Century Capital Management, a Boston investment advisory firm focused on environmentally responsible investing. “With the resolution that went to a vote, we’re pleased with the amount of shareholder support for a first-year environmental proposal. In general, most of the votes were incredibly strong.”
Consumer and industry interest has been running so high that the EPA was forced forced to postpone its fourth and final hearing for security reasons.
The decision came less than 24 hours after the agency announced it was moving its hearing from Binghamton University 65 miles north to a Syracuse, New York, convention center.
The EPA criticized Binghamton University, saying the university wanted to raise the amount it was charging from $6,000 to $40,000.
The university said it anticipated as many as 8,000 people and rallies by environmental groups and drilling supporters, which would have required a switch to a bigger campus venue and hiked insurance and security costs.
A new date and location haven’t been set.
The hearing is the fourth and last by the EPA around the country as it prepares to launch a study of hydraulic fracturing,
The hearings are intended to help shape the scope of the study.
Previous hearings were held in Fort Worth, Texas; Denver; and Canonsburg, Pa. The Pennsylvania hearing drew more than 1,200 participants.
The EPA is studying hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as gas drillers swarm to the lucrative Marcellus Shale region primarily beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio and blast into other shale reserves around the country.
With public input submitted in writing or at the four public meetings, the EPA had planned to complete the study’s design by September, initiate it in January and have initial study results available by late 2012.
Hydraulic Fracturing has drawn the attnetion of Green Century Capital Management, an environmentally responsible investment advisory firm in Boston, and a number of like-minded investment firms.They are coordinating an investor campaign in the United States to promote improved disclosure by natural gas companies about the business and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing.
The shareholder proposals, filed with 12 companies, asked each to report on the environmental impact of the company’s hydraulic fracturing operations and for a discussion of the potential policies the company could adopt, above and beyond regulatory requirements, to reduce or eliminate hazards to air, water and soil quality from those activities.
Investors contend that recent events make this disclosure more important than ever. Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ordered EOG Resources to suspend drilling in the state after a blowout at a company well. According to the DEP, “the incident presented a serious threat to life and property.” At EOG’s annual meeting in April, over 30 percent of the shares voted supported the proposal.
Media attention to fracturing and levels of public concern about potential environmental impacts have skyrocketed since 2007.
In June, Sixty Minutes broadcast a story on fracking which left the viewer largely uninformed about what chemicals were being blasted into the ground.
Then a documentary filmmaker, John Fox, took up the issue. His film, “Gasland,” is now available on HBO. It chronicles the recent catastrophic BP oil spill and the environmental effects of the energy industry's efforts to extract natural resources. Fox traveled the country exposing what he says are the unsafe drilling practices of the natural gas industry and its detrimental effects on the environment and communities.
In communities where fracking is a common occurrence, negative effects were common, he says - sick communities where cancer rates were abnormally high, water that could be lit on fire, not to mention generally unsafe drinking water, animals losing hair, and much more. According to Fox, there are 450,000 of these gas wells across the country, with a proposal for 100,000 more in New York and 100,000 in Pennsylvania.
Not surprisingly, the natural gas industry sees things quite differently.
America's Natural Gas Alliance, an industry lobbying group, says the flammable water in Fox's film occurred because the home owner's water well was drilled into a "natural gas pocket." They say another damning scene in the film, in which Fox blames natural gas drilling for a massive fish kill, was also misplaced. An EPA report, they claim, blames coal mine runoff, not natural gas drilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
