By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

NEW YORK, United States – On Tuesday, the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly voted 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) to adopt a landmark treaty controlling trade in conventional arms.

The treaty, seven years in the making, places prohibitions on exports of conventional weapons in violation of arms embargoes, or which the exporting state assesses could be used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, organized crimes, or terrorism.  States must also act to prevent conventional weapons from reaching the black market.

Anna Macdonald, head of Oxfam’s campaign on arms control, described the treaty as “for the millions of people whose lives have fallen apart because of armed violence every day, from Guatemala to Kenya, Jamaica, Albania and a whole range of other countries.”

As the first major arms accord since the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the new regulations will cover exports of small arms and light weapons, as well as tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, military jets, attack helicopters, warships, battleships, missiles, and missile launchers.  The same type of international controls will be applied as currently govern nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  The treaty does not place prohibitions on imports, however.

Furthermore, the agreement has no power over the domestic weapons trade in any country.  It will require national regulations controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers, however.

“The world has been waiting a long time for this historic treaty. After long years of campaigning, most states have agreed to adopt a global treaty that can prevent the flow of arms into countries where they will be used to commit atrocities,” said Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International, from the UN conference in New York.

Unfortunately, the arms treaty may lack teeth.  While it will be legally binding on those countries that ratify it, the treaty does not provide for an enforcement agency.  This leaves each signatory responsible for self-enforcement through the passage of new laws.  Supporters argue, however, that the stigma of breaking international law will provide a sufficient deterrent to illegal arms trades.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was asked on behalf of nations backing the treaty to put it to a vote in the General Assembly on Tuesday.

Several major arms nations signed the treaty, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany.  Several emerging weapon trading countries also signed such as South Africa and Brazil.  African countries showed particularly strong support, with many of their governments emphasizing that in the long run, the treaty would curb arms sales that had fueled many conflicts on the continent.

Three members of the U.N. voted in opposition: Syria, Iran, and North Korea.  Iran and North Korea are under arms embargoes, while Syria’s government, fighting a two-year civil war, depends upon arms from Russia and Iran.  Syria argued that a draft of the treaty failed to refer to the arming of “non-state terrorist groups”.  Iran claimed the treaty was filled “loopholes” and ignored the “legitimate demand” to prohibit the transfer of arms to those who committed aggression, while North Korea purported it was unbalanced, saying the treaty would allow exporters to deny arms to importers that have a right to legitimate self-defense.

The dissent of the three prevented a consensus last week at a U.N. treaty-drafting conference, which forced a vote by the General Assembly on Tuesday.

“Despite Iran, North Korea and Syria’s deeply cynical attempt to stymie it, the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations have shown resounding support for this lifesaving treaty with human rights protection at its core,” said Brian Wood.

Abstaining were some of the world’s largest exporters: Russia and China.  The former cited concerns about ambiguities, such as how the terms like genocide would be defined.

“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.  However, he noted, “By abstaining they have left their options open.”

Other abstainers included Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and other countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are supplying weapons to Syrian opposition groups.  India, a major arms importer, also abstained, citing concerns tis current trade contracts could be blocked.

In Washington, U.S. President Obama’s administration welcomed the treaty, which Secretary of State John Kerry described as “strong, effective, and implementable.”  He further stated the treaty would “strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”

Mexico released a statement on behalf of 98 U.N. members, declaring that “an effective implementation of this treaty will make a real difference for the people of the world.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “The world wanted this treaty and would not be thwarted by the few who sought to prevent the introduction of robust, effective and legally-binding controls on the international trade in weapons.”

However, the arms treaty almost did not come into fruition before the U.N.  Last year, treaty discussions fell apart when the United States, followed by Russia and China, backed out, claiming they needed more time to consider the issues.  For the U.S., 2012 was a critical presidential election year, and the Obama administration was under considerable domestic pressure from the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) led gun lobby.

Presently, the N.R.A. has vowed to prevent the ratification of the treaty by the Senate, claiming it will undermine domestic gun-ownership rights.  More than 50 senators have already indicated their opposition.  However, the U.N. asserts that the treaty will have no impact on domestic gun sale legislation.  Furthermore, as a concession to the United States, an earlier draft of the treaty was modified to remove a provision requiring states to record importation of ammunition and to prevent the ammunition from being diverted to other countries.

Countries will decide individually whether or not to sign and ratify the treaty.  It will become internationally effective 90 days after the 50th ratification, which may take two to three years.

“This is not a panacea, it is not going to solve all problems overnight but it is an important step. We have seen time and again that international treaties affect the behavior even of those states who fail to sign up,” Anna Macdonald said.

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera – UN Adopts Landmark Arms Treaty – 3 April 2013

Amnesty International – UN Puts Human Rights at Heart of Historic Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

BBC News – UN Passes Historic Arms Trade Treaty by Huge Majority – 28 April 2013

The Guardian – UN Approves First Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

The New York Times – U.N. Treaty Is First Aimed at Regulating Global Arms Sales – 2 April 2013

Returns – U.N. Overwhelmingly Approves Global Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

The Washington Post – U.N. Approves Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — British troops spoke out on Monday about human rights abuses of Iraqi detainees by American forces at a secret US detention facility in Baghdad.

The whistleblowers, who included soldiers and airmen from the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps, claimed they witnessed various forms of torture after the US-led invasion in 2003.

“I saw one man having his prosthetic leg being pulled off him, and being beaten about the head with it before he was thrown onto the truck,” one British military officer was quoted as saying in The Guardian.

Other allegations included claims that Americans at Camp Nama—a secret center at Baghdad International Airport—gave Iraqi prisoners electric shocks, brutally beat Iraqi prisoners, and locked them in dog-like kennels.  The prisoners reportedly were routinely hooded before allegedly being subjected to these tortures and were interrogated in sound-proof shipping containers.

“The prisoners were taken into a hangar to be bagged and tagged, a bag put over their heads and their hands plasticuffed behind their backs,” another soldier told The Guardian.  “Everyone’s seen the Abu Ghraib pictures, but I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”

Indeed, these new allegations follow the scandal over abuses at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison, as well as the beating death of civilian Baha Mousa by British forces in 2003.

The Guardian’s investigation highlighted that the joint American-British special forces unit, called Task Force 121, was responsible for detaining Iraqis believed to have information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.  No such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq.

“The methods [of abuse] were so brutal that they drew condemnation not only from a U.S. human rights body, but from a special investigator reporting to the Pentagon,” The Guardian reported.

When confronted about the new allegations, Geoff Hoon, Britain’s defense secretary at the time, said he had no knowledge of the secret US camp or anything that may have transpired there.

“I’ve never heard of the place,” Hoon reportedly said when asked about the involvement of British troops in providing support services to help detain inmates at Camp Nama.

Although there is no indication that British troops helped carry out any of the alleged abuses at the camp, Britain’s Ministry of Defense refused to say whether it was aware of concerns about human rights abuses there.

A California-based investigative organization, called Project Censored, estimates that more than one million Iraqis were killed as a result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country.

For further information, please see:

Al Arabiya — Baghdad’s Camp Nama: Brutal Prison Torture During Iraq War Revealed — 2 April 2013

Kuwait News Agency — Human Rights Abuses at Detention Centre — 2 April 2013

Press TV — UK Troops Reveal Torture at Secret US-Run Prison in Iraq — 2 April 2013

Daily Mail — British Forces ‘Witnessed Electric Shocks, Beatings and Dog Kennel Torture of Iraqi Prisoners in Secret US Prison in Baghdad’ — 1 April 2013

The Guardian — Camp Nama: Baghdad’s Secret Torture Facility — 1 April 2013

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is expected to sign a bill next month that would end the use of the death penalty.

On Friday, the state’s House of Delegates voted 82-to-56 to repeal capital punishment after the state’s Senate voted 27-to-20 last week for a repeal.  Now the bill only needs O’Malley’s signature, which his aides say should come when the legislature session ends in April.

If signed, the law would take effect on October 1, and all current inmates on death row would have their sentences replaced by life terms without parole.  Maryland would become the eighteenth state in the country to abolish the death penalty, marking an end to the state’s 375-year history of capital punishment.

“With [the] vote to repeal the death penalty in Maryland, the General Assembly is eliminating a policy that is proven not to work,” O’Malley said during a press conference after the legislative approval.  The governor pushed the effort to repeal, making it one of his top goals for this year’s legislative session.

Maryland has used the death penalty only five times since it was reinstated during the 1970s, the last time happening in 2005.  In 2006, Maryland’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that a legislative committee had not properly approved the state’s lethal injection protocols, effectively putting capital punishment on hold.

Supporters of the repeal applauded state lawmakers for eliminating a measure they called costly and counterproductive.  Delegate Heather Mizeur said the decision about who lives or dies, even the worst criminal offenders, is not one anybody should make.

“By willfully taking a human life, the state enacts the worst of human impulses,” she said.

“Maryland’s rejection of the death penalty adds to the national momentum against this cruel and increasing unusual punishment,” said Antonia Ginatta, an advocacy director with the nonprofit Human Rights Watch.

Opponents, however, criticized the legislature and called on O’Malley to not sign the bill.  They said the law would put officers’ safety in jeopardy.  Most significantly, though, opponents said capital punishment was a necessary measure in criminal justice.

“The death penalty is not a deterrent; it is justice,” said Delegate C. T. Wilson, a former prosecutor and U.S. Army veteran.

Even if O’Malley signs the bill into law, the death penalty might not be entirely forgotten yet.  According to the Baltimore Sun, those who support the death penalty could petition it to be on the 2014 ballot, leaving the issue up to voters.  If they succeed, the law would be put on hold pending the results of the election.

State Sen. Thomas Miller, the Senate President, predicted that kind of challenge happening.  Even though no group has publicly supported the idea yet, the Sun reported that recent polls indicate a narrow majority of voters still supports the death penalty.

For further information, please see:

The Baltimore Sun — House Votes to Repeal Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

The Capital Gazette — Maryland General Assembly Votes to Abolish the Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

Human Rights Watch — US: Maryland Expected to Abolish Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

The Washington Post — Md. Assembly Votes to Repeal Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter

WASHINGTON, United States — The family of a respected gay African American candidate for Mayor in Clarksdale, Miss., said this week that they view his death as a hate crime.

The body of Marco McMillian, 33, was beaten, dragged, and burned, a family member said on Monday.  Carter Womack, McMillian’s godfather, said the coroner told relatives that someone dragged McMillian’s body under a fence and left it near the Mississippi River last week.

Coahoma County Coroner Scotty Meredith declined to comment.  But the Associated Press reported that a person with direct knowledge of the investigation confirmed that McMillian had bruises and burns on at least one area of his body.

“We remember Marco as a bold and passionate public servant, whose faith informed every aspect of his life,” McMillian’s campaign said in a statement to the media.

McMillian was reportedly the first openly gay man to become a viable candidate for public office in Mississippi.  The Coahoma County Sheriff’s Department, however, said it would not investigate McMillian’s death as a hate crime, according to spokesperson Will Rooker.

“There’s a lot of people upset about [McMillian’s murder],” said Dennis Thomas, who works at Abe’s Barbeque.  “Why would somebody want to do something like that to somebody of that caliber?  He was a highly respected person in town.”

Investigators have arrested 22-year-old Lawrence Reed of Shelby in McMillian’s death.  Authorities arrested Reed when he crashed McMillian’s SUV into another car near the Coahoma border with Tallahatchie County.  McMillian was not in the car, and his body was ultimately discovered about 30 miles away from the crash, in the woods near the Mississippi-Yazoo levee.

Sources told WPTY, the ABC News affiliate in Memphis, that McMillian was strangled, but authorities would not confirm that.  The family did not address that issue in its public statement.

The news station also reported that Reed’s sister claimed that Reed did not know McMillian was gay.  Instead, she said McMillian may have made sexual advances toward Reed in the car.

“[McMillian] was very concerned about his safety,” Womack said.  “People had tried to talk him out of the race.”

According to his website, McMillian graduated magna cum laude from Jackson State University and earned a master’s degree from St. Mary’s University in philanthropy and development.  He also was a CEO of a nonprofit consulting firm called MWM & Associates.

The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation is helping the sheriff’s department with the investigation.

For further information, please see:

Clarion Ledger — Family: Marco McMillian’s Murder a Hate Crime — 4 March 2013

Huffington Post — Marco McMillian Beaten, Burned, Family of slain Gay Mississippi Mayoral Candidate Says — 3 March 2013

Time — Man Charged in Mississippi Mayoral Candidate’s Death — 1 March 2013

ABC News — 22-Year-Old Charged with Murder Miss. Politician — 28 February 2013

CBS News — Man Charged in Slaying of Miss. Mayoral Candidate — 28 February 2013

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit on Tuesday that challenged a federal law giving the government a broader ability to eavesdrop on international communications.

In a 5-to-4 ruling split along ideological lines, the Court shielded a government anti-terrorism program from ever facing a constitutionality challenge, at least according to court observers.

“[The decision] insulates the statute from meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans’ privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches,” said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Jameel Jaffer in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

The law is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.  Congress amended FISA in 2008, giving the National Security Agency broader authority to secretly monitor emails and phone calls of any U.S. citizens, so long as they are suspected of communicating with anyone located outside of the United States.  The amended provision was set to expire at the end of last year, but Congress renewed and reauthorized the bill for another five years.

In the now-rejected case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, journalists, lawyers, and human rights advocates challenged the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that they might be subject to future wiretapping.  But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, held that such fear was too speculative for the case to proceed.  In other words, they could not show that the law harmed them, so they lacked standing to sue.

“They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of nonimminent harms,” Alito wrote.  The plaintiffs claimed that the reason they had not been harmed yet was because they had taken steps to avoid the surveillance — for example, traveling out of their ways to meet sources and clients in person rather than sending emails or talking on the phone.

Alito reasoned that the plaintiffs had the burden of showing they had standing.  To do that, the Justice wrote, they must point “to specific facts.”  The government had no burden to disprove the plaintiffs’ standing.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the Court’s dissenting opinion.  He agreed with the plaintiffs that, if they had not shown harm already, it was only a matter of time.

“Indeed, it is as likely to take place as are most future events that common-sense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen,” Breyer wrote.

To the dissent, the fact the plaintiffs had to alter their work practices to avoid having confidential calls overheard indicated some harm already.

“In my view, this harm is not ‘speculative,’” Breyer added.

For further information, please see:

Supreme Court of the United States — Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA — 26 February 2013

GlobalPost — Supreme Court Blocks Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit — 26 February 2013

Los Angeles Times — Supreme Court Rules out Secret Surveillance Lawsuits — 26 February 2013

The New York Times — Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. Eavesdropping — 26 February 2013

RT — US Supreme Court Refuses to Let Americans Challenge FISA Eavesdropping Law — 26 February 2013