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

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – Since the United States Supreme Court decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, fifteen Federal District Court Judges have heard and assessed habeas corpus petitions filed by Guantanamo Prison Facility detainees. These hearings continue as President Obama announced that ten detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be prosecuted in the U.S. in either federal court or by military commission. The judges have ordered the release of thirty Guantanamo prisoners since the hearings began.

The judges hearing the prisoners cases cited many reasons in granting their release, the main rationale being that there was a lack of evidentiary material to support a conviction. Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in granting the release of one prisoner that much of the government’s evidence was suspect because it contained second- and third-hand hearsay statements that were obtained by way of torture. Also, some of the statements and documents offered by the government could not be authenticated. 

An example of a detainee that was released was a prisoner name Janko. Before being captured by the U.S. military, Janko was tortured by Al-Qaida for three months and was forced to falsely confess that he was an American spy. He was then imprisoned by the Taliban for a year and a half. Despite this evidence, the government argued that Janko had ties to al-Qaida. In ordering his release, Judge Richard Leon wrote that “surely this extreme treatment of that nature evinces a total evisceration of whatever relationship might have existed” between Janko and the terrorist organization. 

Not all of the detainees who have had their cases heard have been released. For example, Judge James Robinson wrote that Adham Mohammed Ali Awad was a part of Al-Qaida despite questionable evidence that indicated otherwise. 

The habeas corpus hearings last approximately one to two days. The prisoners are allowed to present testimony in their own defense. They participate in their hearings by a secure video link. Those detainees that have been granted release have either been repatriated to their original country or have been released to other countries. Those prisoners that have had their habeas petitions denied await their trial in either a federal district court or by military commission. 

For more information, please see:

MSNBC – Gitmo Detainees Finally Get Day in Court – 16 November 2009

AP – Excerpts From Rulings in Guantanamo Bay Cases – 15 November 2009

NYTIMES – Uighurs Leave Guantanamo for Palau – 31 October 2009

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

BRITISH COLUMBIA, Canada – A man who was arrested as a national security risk after crossing the US-Canadian border with $800,000 in gold coins was released from custody Thursday. Khaled Nawaya crossed the border into British Columbia on October 6 and was arrested after he lied to border officials, saying he only had 10,000 Canadian dollars

When the Canadian border searched his car they found an additional $100,000 in cash. They also found a ring bearing the Hezbollah insignia and a DVD about September 11 conspiracy theories. Also in his car was a scarf bearing pictures of former US and Israeli presidents depicted to look like monkeys. He was detained because officials originally feared he might belong to the Hezbollah organization and the money might be terrorist funds.

Khaled Nawaya, thirty-four, is a Saudi Arabian-born Syrian who has been living in the U.S. since he was seventeen. He received the money in a lawsuit against the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Society after they gave him false information which caused him to lose his student visa. After he lost his visa he decided to move to Canada and had been approved by the Canadian Immigration Board for permanent residency at the time of his arrest.

Nawaya has fallen under suspicion of U.S. officials before after the September 11, 2001 attacks. His lawyer, Phil Rankin, says the suspicions where likely because he was of Middle Eastern descent and a flight instructor.

Nawaya says he wired money to his brother in Texas who bought the coins for him before he left. He decided to invest in the coins because he does not trust American banks and felt this would be safer. Nawaya says he lied to boarder officials because he was afraid they would tax him if he told the truth.

Nawaya has not been charged with any crime though the Royal Canadian Mounted Police originally recommended he be charged with failure to declare. The Canadian government is still in possession of the gold. Nawaya says he is still in shock but is just thankful for his release.

Nawaya’s lawyer points out that it is not illegal to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. He said “those feelings are shared by hundreds of millions of people and in Canada by tens of thousands of people.”

Although Nawaya still has some immigration issues to sort out he will most likely be allowed to live in Canada.

For more information, please see:

Taiwan News – Syrian Man Arrested at US-Canada Border is Freed – 13 November 2009

Globe and Mail – Flight Instructor Released After Month in Custody – 12 November  2009

CBC – Canadian Border Guards Nab Syrian With $800k in Gold – 11 November 2009