By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

HALIFAX, Canada – 200 protestors gathered in Cornwallis Park on Saturday to urge Canada to pull its troops out of Afghanistan and to withdrawal from NATO.  Among the protestors included the Halifax Peace Coalition, students, union members, human rights activists, Muslims, and Quakers.

The park is across the street from the Westin Hotel. The international Security Forum was being held there last weekend. Military leaders intended to discuss the possibility of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.  

Police were present to insure that none of the protestors attempted to enter the hotel. Only to protestors did and were escorted away without incident. The majority of interaction between protestors and police was friendly conversation.

Malali Joya , the youngest person elected to the New Afghan Parliament in 2005 spoke at the protest. She told protestors Afghanistan is not yet liberated and is controlled by corrupt officials. She said that Canada and other countries should pull their troops out of Afghanistan and allow the afghan people to run their own country.

“They pushed us of the frying pan and into the fire” she said

Joya further commented that western media was spreading propaganda about the war and that Canadian bombs had killed civilians. She said that civilians are caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and occupation forces.

Toney Seed editor of Shunpiking Magazine also spoke at the protest. He said that the talks of peace at the conference where part of “a well orchestrated disinformation campaign” to disguise a military Champaign under the guise of a human rights mission.

133 Canadian troops had died since Canada first became involved in the conflict. Support for Canada’s involvement in the war has dropped in the county to below 50 per cent. A recent poll found that 45 percent of Canadians supported Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. That number has dropped from 59 per cent in 2006. Prime Minister Steven Harper has said Canada will end its involvement in Afghanistan by 2011.

For more information, please see:

Chronicle Herald – Bring Soldiers Home, Anti-war Activists Urge – 22 November 2009

Globe and Mail – Time Running Out in Afghanistan: Hillier – 21 November 2009

Halifax Media Co-op – Canada Out of Afghanistan – 21 November 2009

By William Miller,

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada – Richard Colvin, former second in command at Canada’s Embassy in Kabul Afghanistan, testified before a parliamentary committee on Wednesday November 18 that Canada transferred numerous Afghan detainees to afghan authorities despite knowing that they would likely be subjected to torture. Colvin further testified that many of the detainees where not involved in the insurgency.
Colvin implicated Canadian government departments including the Department of Foreign Affairs and international trade the department of defense and the Privy Council headed by the Prime Minister. All had received reports regarding the torture of transferred detainees over an 18 month period from 2006 to 2007 but failed to act on them. It was internationally known that Prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities were being tortured. Both NATO and the United Nations have previously raised concerns of abuse by officials in Afghanistan.

Colvin Testified that lax reporting systems brought Canada very close to being complicit in the torture. Both Britain and the Netherlands transferred detainees to Afghanistan authority but did so in lesser numbers and kept better records and actively monitored prisoners to safe guard them against torture. Canada allegedly went to great lengths not to address the problem and went so far as refusing to take phone calls from The Red Cross for months when they attempted to warn officials of the torture.

Unlike Britain and the Netherlands, Canada filed no reports on prisoner transfers.  Officials claim that this was done for security reasons but Colvin alleges that it was to guard against the press and the public becoming informed of detainee torture. In 2007 government officials issued reports to their department not to write or record any statements about detainee torture and to sensor those in existence after the Globe and Mail reported on the torture of transferred prisoners.

Harper claims that he sent reports to Canadian Government officials himself over a 17 month period when Canadian Officials where denying that detainees were tortured.

Torture methods used on the prisoners included electric shock, beatings, and exposure to open flames, sleep deprivation and several other methods. Prisoners where often tortured for months at a time. If Calvin’s assertions are verified, Canada could face investigation for war crimes by the International Court.

Officials Colvin named in his testimony include Margrete Bloodworth, former National Security Advisor for Prime Minister Steven Harper, David Sproule, former Ambassador to Afghanistan, and half a dozen other high ranking officials.

For more information, please see:

CBC – A Who’s Who of Officials Named in Richard Colvin,s Testimony – 20 November 2009

Guardian – Canadian Diplomat Alleges Troops in Afghanistan Were Complicit in Torture – 20 November 2009

Ottawa Citizen – Grave Allegations – 20 November 2009

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

JUAREZ, Mexico – The United Nations (UN) received a petition from business persons from the border town of Juarez.  The business leaders sought help in form of a peacekeeping mission from the UN to protect them from the drug related violence in thier city.  However, an agent of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Mexico stated that such relief is unavailable, and it is unlikely that a petition could even be heard from direct citizens of a State.  The business persons also submitted a request for assistance from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.The business persons are from the Juarez Association of Maquiladoras whose business is primarily foreign owned factories and business associations generally.

Daniel Murguia, President of the Ciudad Juarez group of the National Chamber of Commerce, Services and Tourism indicted that “this is a proposal … for international forces to come here to help out the domestic [security] forces.  There are a lot of extortions and robberies of businesses. Many businesses are closing,” and added that “what we are asking for with the blue helmets [UN peacekeepers] is that we know they are the army of peace, so we could use not only the strategies they have developed in other countries … but they also have technology.”

Mexican President Felipe Calderon sent about 50,000 military forces in December 2006, in a controversial crackdown and the Mexican military continues training and joining the local police enforcement.  Nonetheless the violence has not ceased.   

The violence statistics are staggering with more than 2,000 killings reported this year and records about 10 murders a day for a population of 1.5 million.

For more information, please see:

AFP – Mexico leaders call for UN help in Ciudad Juarez – 10 November 2009

CNN – Juarez business leaders petition U.N. for help with drug traffickers – 12 November 2009

New York Daily News – Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez calls for U.N. to help quell violence – 12 November 2009

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On Thursday, the United States ambassador for war crimes spoke to the governing body of  the International Criminal Court in the Hague. It was the first time that a U.S. official has spoken to the governing body of the ICC since its inception. The ICC was created by the 2002 Rome Treaty.  The U.S. supported the creation of the ICC, but has not become a signatory of the treaty. 

Before becoming the U.S. ambassador for war crimes, Rapp served as the chief prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Rapp gave a speech to the governing body of the ICC expressing U.S. interests and issues with it.  Rapp stated that the U.S. has concerns with the ICC. Those concerns primarily revolved around the crime of aggression. The first concern was to define the crime of aggression.  The second concern dealt with the ICC’s jurisdiction. Rapp stated that jurisdiction over aggression “should follow a Security Council resolution that aggression has occurred.” Another concern that the U.S. has with the ICC is the threat of politically motivated prosecutions. More specifically, the U.S. was concerned with the ICC prosecuting United States soldiers based upon politics. 

Despite U.S. concerns, it still supports prosecuting crimes that go against the basic morals of humanity.  Rapp stated that the U.S. has supported the prosecutions of atrocities dating back to the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. The U.S. also participated in the prosecutions for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 

Supporters of the ICC welcomed Rapp’s attendance and speech to the governing body. They saw his appearance as a “sign of re-engagement.” Nevertheless, many of the countries under the ICC’s jurisdiction do not want the Security Council to have sole jurisdiction on when a crime of aggression occurs. 

Today, one hundred and ten countries are members of the ICC. Besides the U.S., other countries that are not members of the ICC are Russia, Israel, and China. The ICC can only prosecute those individuals from the countries that are members. 

For more information, please see:

AP – Not a Member, US Envoy Attends International Court – 19 November 2009

BBC – US War Crimes Envoy Appears at International Court – 19 November 2009

Reuters – U.S. Makes Debut Attendance at Hague War Crimes Court – 19 November 2009

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Supreme Court declined without comment to hear the case Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc, ending a two-decade long legal battle. Even if the advocates had won, the legal grounds were decided on a procedural issue and therefore the team would have only lost trademark protection, but would not have been forced to change its name. The team is firm in its stance that it will not and would not change the team name. 

The Petitioners only asked the Supreme Court to review whether the claim could be barred by laches when a suit is brought too late, and not whether the nickname was offensive. They cited a written decision by Justice Alito that supported the view that offensive trademark claims could be brought at any time, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The petitioners argued that the “Redskins” logo and mascot was not worthy of trademark protection, because it was very racially offensive and discriminatory. The Petitioners hoped to have a lower court’s procedural ruling that barred their suit based on time limitations.

Robert Raskopf, attorney for the Native American legal team, said “Obviously, we’re quite pleased; it’s been a long road. We’re not surprised the court didn’t see any issue worthy of review.” However, the advocates are disappointed. Speaking  about the new challengers of the same trademark issue but with slightly different circumstances, Raskopf said “I think we’re very confident with our likelihood of success.”

 

The respondent, the sports team, have defended the use of the logo, stating that Native Americans should feel honored and not disparaged. In its legal brief, the team wrote that the name was “in honor of the team’s head coach, William ‘Lone Star’ Dietz, who was a Native American.”

Nonetheless, in an amicus brief Native American associations wrote that the Redskins name is “patently offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype.”

For more information, please see:

Associated Press – Court Won’t Hear Complaint About Redskins Name – 17 November 2009

Wall Street Journal – Get Rare Win Over Name in Court – 17 November 2009

Washington Post – Court Won’t Hear Redskins Case – 17 November 2009