By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America desk

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The British government was compelled to disclose a document that the judge called the “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of a former Guantanamo Bay inmate while he was in U.S. custody.  David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said they would not seek to appeal the ruling.

The judge rejected the British government’s argument of harm to intelligence ties with the United States and national security concerns.   News agencies sued for the release of the documents on public-interest grounds and claimed the judgment as a “resounding victory for freedom of speech.”

The judge outlined the British intelligence from the United States regarding Binyam Mohamed, a British resident that was arrested in Pakistan for allegedly being a terrorist plotter.  The techniques used in Mohamed’s interrogation while in U.S. custody included “continuous sleep deprivation,” shackling during questioning, threatened and played on his fears of being “disappeared.”  Mohamed suffered “significant mental stress and suffering” and was kept under suicide watch.

Mohamed is of Ethiopian descent and was arrested on a passport violation in 2002.  He sustains that the CIA took him to Morocco and Afghanistan were he was tortured.  The charges against Mohamed were dropped in October 2008, and in February 2009 Mohamed became the first Guantanamo Bay inmate released by the Obama administration.

Miliband also said British judgment affirmed that intelligence provided by an ally could not be disclosed without that country’s permission indicting that said permission was given by the U.S. court action allowing for similar information to be disclosed.

The summary did not include the more serious torture allegations such as being severely beaten, left in stress positions, and his genitals being sliced with a scalpel during repeated interrogations.  These allegations occurred under U.S. auspices, but the nationalities of the interrogators remain uncertain.

For more information, please see:

The Huffington Post – Memo Confirms ‘Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading’ Treatment Of Guantanamo Detainees – 11 February 2010

The Los Angeles Times – British Ruling Releases Memo on “Inhuman” Treatment of Guantanamo Bay Prisoner – 10 February 2010

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

TORONTO, Canada – The Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled against Elections Canada on Friday, February 15, finding that they needed to take steps to improve accessibility to disabled voters across Canada. The complaint was filed by Reverend Peter Hughes after he had difficulty accessing a polling place in Toronto.

Rev. Hughes problems with Elections Canada began in March 2008. When Hughes arrived at the polling site, he found that the voting booths where located at the bottom of a long flight of stairs.  Hughes uses a walker to get around and was unable to negotiate the stairs standing up.

Hughes was forced to sit on the stairs and slide down them one at a time in order to access the polls. As Hughes described the experience, “I sat down on the edge of the stairs and I went down on the seat of my pants down to the bottom of the stairs while somebody carried my walker.”

Hughes problems only got worse when he complained at the polling site. Elections Canada told him it was not their problem and that he was in error. They told him to exit using a snow covered ramp used for maintenance and garbage. “There was no way that a disabled person could easily get up that ramp. It was very difficult for me to struggle up the ramp in the middle of the snow,” said Hughes.

When Hughes found out that the same site would be used again for an election in October he took his complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Hughes said the complaint was not just for himself but for all disabled people across Canada.

Last Friday the Commission ruled in favor of Hughes, finding that Elections Canada had not done enough to address the needs of disabled individuals in Canada. They ordered Elections Canada to improve accessibility in all Canadian polling places, to improve their complaint system, and to report to parliament on the issue of accessibility for physically impaired.

In their ruling the court said “it is disappointing that in the disability rights/accessibility heightened time in which we find ourselves living as we enter the second decade of the 21^st century, that Mr. Hughes would have had to experience the humiliation and indignities of those two voting events, followed by the tardy investigation, inaccurate conclusions and poor handling of his verbal and written complaints.”

Human Rights Tribunal decisions can be appealed in the Canadian Federal Courts. Elections Canada is planning to appeal the decision.

For more information, please see:

Canada News Wire – Elections Canada Ordered to Stop Using Inaccessible Polling Stations by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal when Disabled Voter forced to crawl to polling station on seat of his pants – 12 February 2010

CBC – Elections Canada ordered to make voting accessible – 13 February 2010

680 News – Elections Canada ordered to ensure polling stations accessible to all – 13 February 2010

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

GEORGIA, United States – The United States Army will not seek prosecution of Specialist Alexis Hutchinson for failing to report for duty. Hutchinson, a single mother, could not find a person to watch her son before her deployment to Afghanistan began. Instead of deploying with her unit, she stayed and cared for her son.

Hutchinson entered the Army directly out of high school.  The twenty one year old rose to the position of Specialist within the Army.  She was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan with her unit in November.  As a single mother, Hutchinson made plans for her mother to watch and care for her son before she was deployed to Afghanistan.  The day before she was to leave, Hutchinson’s mother informed her that she would be unable to care for the child.  Hutchinson then informed her commanding officer of the situation.  She was told she had thirty days to arrange for an alternate plan.  However, her brigade’s deployment was pushed up.  Hutchinson was then informed that she had twenty four hours to find somebody to watch her son.  Instead of deploying, Hutchinson stayed behind to care for her son.

Hutchinson was arrested for not deploying with her unit.  She was charged with four court-martial counts: being absent without leave, missing a movement, dereliction of duty, and insubordinate conduct.  If  she was prosecuted and found guilty of the offenses, Hutchinson would have faced two years in prison.  However, her case was settled before heading to trial.  Hutchinson received an other-than-honorable discharge from the Army.  She was also demoted from a Specialist to a Private and will not receive military or veterans benefits.

Currently, there are approximately eighty-five thousand single parents in the United States armed forces.  Ten-thousand single parents were deployed overseas last year.  The Army requires single parents to have a family care plan on file.  The file is to be updated when changes occur.  The plan outlines who will care for the child during long deployments, drills, and annual trainings.

For more information, please see:

NY TIMES–Single Mother Is Spared Court-Martial–11 February 2010

San Francisco Chronicle-Army discharges single mother who won’t deploy-11 February 2010

NPR–Soldier Mom Arrested After Refusing to Deploy–19 November 2009

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas – On Thursday, a petition to certify a settlement in a class action lawsuit against Superior Forestry Company by migrant workers was presented to federal district court.  The proposed settlement of almost three million dollars has the potential to be the largest payout to migrant workers ever.

The migrant workers brought a lawsuit in 2006 with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center and two private law firms in Chicago.  They alleged that they were grossly underpaid by Superior Forestry.  According to the complaint, Superior took advantage of the migrants’ lack of ability to speak English to pay them less than the minimum wage and not pay the workers overtime.  Superior is one of the largest forestry contractors in the United States.  They are able to hire and recruit migrant workers from Mexico and Central American through a guest worker program.

The migrant workers asserted violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act.  According to the Department of Labor, the Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act provides employment opportunities for immigrants to do seasonal work in the United States.  Under the Act, the migrant’s employer must “pay workers their wages when they are due.”  Also, if the employer provides housing for migrant workers, the housing must meet federal and state health and safety guidelines.

Superior Forestry denies withholding pay from the migrant workers.  Instead of bringing the case to trial, they settled the case to avoid costly litigation expenses.  Superior stated that they paid the workers on a production basis instead of an hourly rate. The Southern Poverty Law Center stated that the settlement shows Superior’s guilt.  According to the Center, “this settlement sends a powerful message that these workers have rights and that their employers will be held accountable.”  The Center stressed that migrant workers are an exploited group of people who have the right to be compensated fairly for their work.  At the time of the settlement, approximately two thousand two hundred migrant workers participated in the class action suit.  The settlement has to be approved by a federal district court judge in a fairness hearing on March 26.

For more information, please see:

AP–Migrant forest workers get $2.75M wage settlement–12 February 2010

Earth Times-Migrant Tree Planters Find Justice: Forestry Company to Pay Record $2.75 Million Settlement to Foreign Guestworkers Seeking Back Wages–12 February 2010

NY Times–Migrants Win $2.75 Million–12 February 2010

Department of Labor-The Migrant and Seansonal Worker Protection Act

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba – Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen accused of murdering United States military personnel in Afghanistan, is set to stand trial in July.  Khadr is one of the six Guantanamo Bay detainees being prosecuted in front of United States military commissions.  Controversy surrounds the trial of Khadr.  He was fifteen years old at the time that he allegedly committed the murder.  Therefore, some human rights groups as well as the United Nations believe that he should not be prosecuted for the murder because he was indoctrinated as a child soldier.

The United States will prosecute Khadr for the murder of a United States Special Forces soldier.  In 2002 United States military forces engaged in hostilities with extremists in eastern Afghanistan.  After the military excursion ended, soldiers approached and destroyed a compound where the extremists were hiding.  As they were approaching the compound, someone from inside threw a grenade at the soldiers.  The explosion from the grenade resulted in the death of one soldier and blinded another.  Khadr was the only person that was found inside the compound.  He was arrested and eventually became a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.  At the time of the incident, Khadr was fifteen years old.

The Obama Administration has been criticized for prosecuting Khadr.  United Nations officials, human rights advocates, and Khadr’s lawyers believe that Khadr was a child soldier at the time the incident happened and should not be prosecuted.  At the age of ten, Khadr moved to Afghanistan with his family.  His father became apart of Osama bin Laden’s organization.  Therefore, Khadr became indoctrinated with bin Laden’s message and mission at a young age and became a child soldier.  Radhika Coomaraswamy, the United Nations Special Representative for children in armed conflict stated that “the U.N position is that children should not be prosecuted for war crimes.” Also, there has been allegations that Khadr was tortured as a prisoner at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

The United States will try Khadr for his actions in July.  According to the senior prosecutor of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Captain John Murphy, Khadr’s background will be taken into consideration by the commission in determining his guilt or innocence.  He stated that “even in our traditional court system, we try fifteen year olds, and we try them as adults.”

Despite the arguments against prosecuting child soldiers, there is no United States or international law prohibiting their prosecution.  Nevertheless, past war crimes tribunals have set the precedent of not trying child soldiers. Professor Michael Newton of the Vanderbilt University stated that the consensus in the international legal community is not to prosecute child soldiers.

For more information, please see:

MSNBC–U.S. trial of ex-boy solider raises fierce debate–10 February 2010

CBC News–Omar Khadr: Coming of age in a Guantanamo Bay jail cell–23 June 2009

Humans Rights Watch–The Omar Khadr Case: A Teenager Imprisoned at Guantanamo–June 2007