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

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