North America & Oceania

U.S. Government Admits Drone Strikes Killed Four Citizens

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The Justice Department acknowledged for the first time this week that U.S. drone strikes have killed four American citizens in the Middle East since 2009.

In a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder (above) to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy on Wednesday, the Obama Administration acknowledged for the first time that U.S. drone strikes have killed four American citizens since 2009. (Photo Courtesy of USA Today)

The admission came Wednesday, the day before President Obama a new approach to the nation’s drone policy, in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down from WWII, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical the United States Citizenship alone does not make such citizens immune from being targeted,” Holder wrote.

During counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda and other forces, the United States targeted and killed one American citizen—Anwar al-Awlaki—and acknowledged the deaths of three others as a result of U.S. drone attacks.  Those citizens—Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist; Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki; and, Jude Kenan Mohammed—were killed around the same time but “were not specifically targeted.”

The letter described the older al-Awlaki as the planner of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009, and it said he plaid a key role in a failed attempt to bomb cargo planes headed for the United States in 2010.

The letter was a response directed by President Obama to congressional inquiries into the “administration[‘s] use of lethal force against U.S. citizens.”  The White House said it “informed the relevant congressional oversight committees that it had approved the use of lethal force against al-Awlaki in February 2010—well over a year before the operation in question.”

On Thursday, President Obama announced a new approach to drone strikes in the future, tightening the rules of who can be targeted.

“In the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al-Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States,” Obama said at the National Defense University in Washington.

“Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,” he said.  “This war, like all wars, must end.  That’s what history advises.  That’s what our democracy demands.”

The Administration said, moving forward, the U.S. military would be the lead authority for drone strikes instead of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For further information, please see:

Bloomberg Businessweek — Obama Sees Sunset on Sept. 11 War Powers in Drone Limits — 24 May 2013

CBS News — Attorney General Holder: Drones Killed 4 Americans Since 2009 — 22 May 2013

USA Today — Holder Says Four U.S. Citizens Killed in Drone Strikes — 22 May 2013

Voice of America — US Officially Acknowledges Drone Strike Killings — 22 May 2013

A Guantanamo Detainee’s Perspective

From the Americas Section of the International Committee of the Red Cross:

Sami El-haj was working as a cameraman with Al Jazeera when he was captured and consequently detained at Guantanamo. He spent six years at the facility and is now the Manager the of Public Liberties and Human Rights Department at Al-Jazeera Network. 

This article by Mr. El-haj was originally published by theInternational Review of the Red Cross earlier this Spring.

My story of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is not exceptional. It more or less reflects the situation of all those who have languished or are languishing in the depths of Guantanamo or any dark prisons of injustice. However, it is my hope that, by telling this story and by clarifying certain notions and presenting some proposals, I may help to improve the ICRC’s humanitarian services and its relations with detainees.

Photo Courtesy of ICRC.

The history of this time-honoured organization and its role in alleviating the suffering of victims of war, torture, and imprisonment are too well known to require an introduction. As for me, I regard the ICRC as having been born on the day that I came to know it and it came to know me, when I came to accept it – after rejecting it for a long time, because I was unaware of what it did and how, when it presented to me its system of values, which I had previously failed to understand.

Thus, my story began in January 2002, with a blank sheet of paper handed to me by the American investigator at Bagram who requested that I write a letter to my family and specify their address. I distrusted this request because I thought it was part of the investigation. My fellow prisoners and I felt the same distrust for the second time that year during our encounter with the ICRC in Kandahar prison when its delegates asked us to give them an account of how we had been detained and transferred there. The first instance of positive appreciation came shortly before the Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) when the ICRC presented us with copies of the Holy Qur’an that it had brought to Kandahar prison. It also brought us dishes of mutton from ritually sacrificed sheep, which had a highly positive effect on us. Someone had remembered us during the Eid and compensated us to a certain extent for our privation on that great occasion.

I received the first letter from my family, through the Qatar Red Crescent, in September 2002. It enclosed a photograph of my baby son Muhammad, whom I had left while he was taking his first faltering steps. The feeling was indescribable: a strange mixture of solace and sadness; tears were my first reaction. All my fellow prisoners in the neighbouring cells also broke into tears because they thought that something bad had happened to my family. This continued for more than an hour during which time I was unable to explain the situation or even to read the letter. The mere fact that I had received it, together with that photograph, had a tremendous impact, and not only on me!

Subsequently, there was a regular exchange of letters with my family through the ICRC, and my trust in it, and in its role, increased with the arrival of the first Arab delegate, from the Arab Maghreb, in whom we had even greater confidence when we found that he knew the Qur’an by heart. My reason for mentioning this is to draw attention to the prevalent notion among the detainees that an organization displaying a cross as its emblem must be a crusader organization. The fact that the ICRC delegate was a Muslim who had memorized the Qur’an rectified the misconceptions that we were harbouring concerning the organization with which we had not previously had any dealings in our countries.

He was followed by a succession of Arab delegates, which had a very positive effect on our attitude towards the ICRC insofar as their presence made us feel comfortable and confident since they were fellow Arabs with whom we could communicate more easily. At the very least, we could understand their facial expressions in which we perceived genuine feelings and a sympathy that seemed more authentic to us because of cultural similarities.

Later, the ICRC brought specialists and doctors. The availability of medical care gave us a feeling of relief and this feeling became stronger with the arrival of jurists who answered our questions. The provision of a library was even more welcome since the ICRC supplied more than 10,000 books, ranging from the principal Islamic reference works to the best detective stories. We were able to take advantage of this store of knowledge in order to organize a programme between the sunset and evening prayers. During these evening sessions one of us would read a book and summarize it for the others. We read to those who did not know how to read, and some of them began to master the Arabic language. Even more importantly, reading and exercising our imagination was very helpful in enabling us to preserve our sanity. In this connection, it is noteworthy that a consultant from the prison’s administration – this time of Arabic origin – deprived us of these books by warning the prison administration that it was ‘training theologians’. After that we started receiving Tintin and Milou stories and books bearing offensive titles such as A Donkey from the East!

The ICRC improved its interaction with the detainees by developing the means of communication between them and their families to include the Internet and a telephone line.

In the light of my above-mentioned experiences, I can point out some negative aspects that could have been avoided in the ICRC’s contacts with the detainees:

1. The dispatch of non-Arab delegates created a psychological barrier because of cultural and linguistic differences, resulting in a lack of trust in the ICRC on the part of the detainees.

2. Regarding the ICRC’s emblem, it would obviously be unreasonable to ask the organization to change its emblem in order to build bridges of confidence with the recipients of its humanitarian services. However, it would be extremely helpful if the ICRC could pay attention to this point and endeavour to clarify the issue of the emblem by giving a historical explanation in order to dispel people’s misconceptions, and especially those of people from Islamic backgrounds who might be unaware of the true facts.

In accordance with its confidential approach, the ICRC does not make public its observations from inside Guantanamo. At first sight, the services that the ICRC has succeeded in providing for the detainees seem to merit this heavy price. However, as a former detainee, I would venture to suggest that the ICRC’s silence should be limited and not absolute since there are aspects that could and should be criticized frankly and openly in the media. Clear examples of this are the refusal to allow the detainees at Guantanamo to benefit from the privileges provided for in the Geneva Conventions, including the right to study and receive appropriate medical care. It is paradoxical that we sometimes felt that we were the ones who were protecting the ICRC delegates and not vice versa. Their silence rendered them weak in the eyes of our jailers, while we wanted them to be accorded respect as persons of note.

The ICRC should therefore establish a mechanism for fruitful cooperation with the international media in order to expose all violations of the Geneva Conventions that degrade human dignity. Although we certainly applaud the Red Cross’s success in gaining access to Guantanamo, at a time when leading personalities are loudly advocating for democracy and human rights, it is no longer acceptable to remain silent about Guantanamo’s very existence, let alone what is happening inside its walls.

Canadian Guantanamo Convict to Appeal

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada — Omar Khadr is appealing his conviction for killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, but Canadian officials say that an overturn will not automatically guarantee his freedom.

Canadian-born Omar Khadr, now 26, plans to appeal his war crimes convictions for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in 2002. (Photo Courtesy of Sun News)

Khadr, now 26, spent 10 years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay following his arrest in Afghanistan as a 15-year-old in 2002.  In 2010, he confessed to five war crimes before a military tribunal, including the murder of U.S. Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, an army medic, during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

Last September, Khadr was repatriated in Canada to a high-security prison as part of a plea deal that included an eight-year sentence and a waiver of his right to appeal.

But Khadr and his attorneys say that the court that convicted him had no jurisdiction to do so, and they want his terror convictions overturned.

“You can’t make a crime a crime retroactively,” lawyer David Frakt told the Global News.  Frakt, who has represented prominent Guantanamo detainees in the past, believes Khadr has good odds that two of his convictions will be overturned.

But reversing the murder conviction in violation of the law of war might stand no chance.  When Khadr pled guilty, the agreement outlined his killing Sgt. Speer.  To overturn that, Khadr’s attorneys would have to argue that the entire plea deal is invalid, as well as everything that resulted from it.

“It’s all about keeping Omar’s options in a difficult political climate,” Khadr’s Canadian lawyer, Dennis Edney, told the Global News.  “If successful, Omar Khadr will finally be free and able to put to rest our government’s descriptors of him as a ware criminal and a terrorist.  This is a common misconception that needs to be corrected.”

Canadian authorities insist, however, that even if Khadr’s convictions are overturned in the United States, the Parole Board of Canada will decide what ultimately happens to him.

“Omar Khadr is a convicted terrorist,” said Julie Carmichael, an aide to Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, in a statement emailed to the Globe and Mail.  “He pleaded guilty to the murder of Christopher Speer, an American Army medic.  Decisions related to his future will be made by the Parole Board of Canada.”

Since being transferred to Canada from Guantanamo last fall, Khadr has been held at Millhaven Institution, a maximum-security prison in Bath, Ontario.  He will be eligible for a parole hearing this summer.  At least one Canadian member of parliament is upset by the appeal.

“While this individual attempts to take back his own words and recant his guilty plea, he is simply re-victimizing the family of Sgt. Speer,” Toronto Member of Parliament Roxanne James told the Commons on Monday.

The appeal, which Khadr’s American lawyer, Sam Morrison, said would be filed “as soon as possible,” will be heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“[U]ltimately it can go to the Supreme Court,” legal expert Jeffrey Addicott told Sun News.  Addicott, who has advised the U.S. government on Guantanamo-related cases, is director of the Center for Terrorism Law in San Antonio, Texas.

“[W]e’re talking a period of years before anything will be resolved one way or the other,” he added, saying that Khadr’s appeal is unlikely to succeed.  “In my opinion, this appeal is dead on arrival.  He didn’t have the standing to engage in combat.  Therefore, if you kill another person, it’s murder.”

For further information, please see:

Global News — Omar Khadr May Win Appeal, But No Ticket Out of Prison — 30 April 2013

Sun News — Khadr ‘Re-Victimizing’ Murdered Medic’s Family, Says Tory MP — 29 April 2013

AFP — Canadian-Born Guantanamo Convict Plans Appeal: Report — 28 April 2013

Globe and Mail — Omar Khadr’s Freedom in Ottawa’s Hands Despite U.S. Appeal, Safety Minister Insists — 28 April 2013

China Criticizes the United States on Its Human Rights Record

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — China blasted the human rights record of the United States this week, blaming the U.S. military for infringing on rights on other countries around the world.

In what many believe to be a retaliatory report released Sunday, China bashed the U.S. human rights record as a “double standard.”

The criticisms, released Sunday in a report in China’s state news agency Xinhua, accused the United States of ignoring human rights abuses and employing a “double standards.”

“The lives and personal security of the United States citizens, who were haunted by serious violent crimes were not duly protected,” the report said.  In particular, it emphasized the alleged degradation of women’s rights as reflected in rising numbers of domestic violence reports in 2012.

Analysts called the critical review of U.S. human rights a retaliation by Beijing to last week’s report by the U.S. State Department on human rights practices in countries around the world for 2012, decrying the Chinese government.  Human rights have long been a contentious topic between the two countries.

“The U.S. has been using the human rights issue as a tool to bash other countries, which will affect the development of the human rights around the world,” said Chang Jian in an interview with People’s Daily Online.  Jian is the executive deputy director of the Center for Human Rights Studies at Nankai University in Tianjin.

The Chinese accuse the U.S. reports as being negative toward other countries’ human rights situations, making them far from objective.

“Religious discrimination is also rapidly on the rise, with an increase in insults and attacks against Muslims,” the Chinese report added about the U.S. record.

The Chinese report also cited U.S. gun violence as an example of human rights violations, calling it a serious threat to the safety of American citizens.  The claims also attacked the U.S. political process.

“American citizens do not enjoy a genuinely equal right to vote,” the report said.  It cited a smaller turnout for last year’s presidential election and a voting rate of 57.5 percent.

China’s authoritarian government maintains tight controls over political activity, as well as religion and free speech, all of which are restrictions that the U.S. government considers to be human rights violations.

The annual U.S. global report on human rights said China recently imposed new requirements for potential government opposition groups to register with the government.  It also accused China of trying to strengthen efforts to silence and intimidate political activists and public interest lawyers.  The goal, the U.S. report said, was to prevent any public outcry of independent opinions.

For further information, please see:

China Daily USA — US ‘Turns a Blind Eye to Human Rights’ — 22 April 2013

Press TV — China Criticizes US Human Rights Record — 22 April 2013

RT — Beijing Slams US ‘Woeful Record of Human Rights’ — 22 April 2013

Yahoo! News — China Criticizes US for Its Human Rights Record — 21 April 2013

Hungry, Hungry Detainees, How Gitmo Prisoners Are Facing Detention

By Brendan Oliver Bergh
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

HAVANA, Cuba – The prisoners of Guantanamo Bay live in a legal quagmire. Deemed either too dangerous to be freed, or pushed under the rug, hoped to be forgotten by the United States legislature, executive and judicial branches that have kept them there. Due to their status as non-Americans, in a territory not of the United States, they are forbidden from exercising many legal remedies that the United States Constitution upholds, habeas corpus, article 3 courts. Instead they took what they felt was their only available remedy, a hunger strike.

Guantanamo Bay prison camp, also known as GITMO, where hundreds of detainees are being held without cause.(Photo courtesy of NPR)

Over the weekend detainees clashed with the prison guards with makeshift weapons: batons, broomsticks and water bottles crafted together with duct tape. Beyond the mere hopelessness many feel, there have been a number of setbacks for the detained. Revelations that a figure was secretly monitoring and censoring the pretrial hearings of men, and the discovery of a listening device in the client-attorney conference room drove many to begin their three-month hunger strike. After the clashes, detainees were separated and each placed into solitary confinement.

Unwilling to allow the detainees to slowly kill themselves, guards were forced to subdue them, and insert feeding tubes up their noses in order to stave off starvation. One inmate describes the feeling as “painful,” and claimed that “As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone.”

The hunger strikes and physical defection are just the latest from the Guantanamo Bay detainees who are seeking international recognition of their plight. Despite an executive order by President Barack Obama, the prison remains open due to funding plights. After Congress passed legislation that effectively eliminated any way for detainees transfer into the sovereign United States the camp remains in limbo, surviving on an ever shrinking pool of funding leading to cuts in resources.

Attorneys for the detained have stated that it is unclear how the hunger strike will eventually end. The strike originally arose out of the detainee’s sense of hopelessness that the administration will ever be closed. But until either another country agrees to take the prisoners, or Congress alters legislation, it is unclear how the detainee’s story will end.

For more information, please see:

Truth-Out – Gitmo Trial Ethics Breaches Called Possible Obama Plan To Close Prison – 15 April 2013

Policy Mic – Guantanamo Hunger Strike: Abused Prisoners Riot At GITMO – 15 April 2013

Wired – It’s Forced Feeding Vs. Scotch-Tape Batons As Gitmo Detainees Continue Hunger Strike – 15 April 2013

The New York Times – Gitmo Is Killing Me – 14 April 2013