California Court Loosens ‘Three Strikes’ Law

By Lyndsey Kelly
Desk Reporter, North America  

Washington D.C., United States of America – The California Supreme Court has loosened the states infamous “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law. The law was originally passed as a part of the national trend to get “tough on crime” in the 1990’s.

California Supreme Court rules that under the state’s “three strikes” law a defendant cannot be given two strikes from charges which stemmed from the same incident (Photo Courtesy of L.A. Times).

Under the three strikes law, an individual whom committed a violent crime and who had been convicted of two prior felonies was sentenced to a mandatory 25 years. The law was recently amended in 2012, as a result of a ballot vote, requiring the third strike to be a violent felony. Prior to this amendment the law allowed the third strike to be a misdemeanor.

The ruling came about in a case regarding a woman, Darlene Vargas, who had been charged with two prior felonies, car jacking and robbery. Both charges came out of the same incident. The Court decided that Vargas’ two prior felonies stemmed from the same act- taking a car by force. The unanimous decision by the court will overturn a 25-years-to-life sentence for the woman.

Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar likened the situation to America’s favorite pastime, baseball. “The voting public would reasonably have understood the ‘Three Strikes’ baseball metaphor to mean that a person would have three chances – three swings of the bat if you will – before the harshest penalty could be imposed,” “The public also would have understood that no one can be called for two strikes on just one swing,” Justice Werdegar wrote for the court.

In making their ruling, the judges stated that the legislature and the voters intended for criminal defendants to have three separate chances to redeem themselves before they are sentenced to 25-years-to-life.The Court’s decision marks the second time the rules regarding imprisoning career criminals have been softened in recent years.

The justices sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.

 

For more information, please see the following:

CBS – State Supreme Court Rules On Three Strikes Law – 13 July 2014.

L.A. TIMES – Multiple Convictions From One Act Count As One ‘Strike,’ Court Rules – 13 July 2014.

REUTERS – California High Court Softens ‘Three Strikes” Law – 13 July 2014.

YAHOO – California high Court Softens ‘Three Strikes’ Law – 13 July 2014.

Papua New Guinea in the Midst of a Far Reaching Corruption Scandal

by Max Bartels 

Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania 

 

Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 

Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been in the grips of a fraud scandal that goes to the very top of the country’s political structure. The Prime Minister Peter O’Neil himself has been accused of siphoning off millions of dollars of public money to a private law firm. The key evidence in the case against O’Neil is a letter he allegedly signed authorizing $31 million dollars to be sent to a prominent PNG law firm.

IW #7 PNG Corruption Photo
PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neil (left) shakes hands with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (right) in March.
(Photo curtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald)

In response to the growing corruption that runs rampant in PNG the government faced pressure from both the public and from international powers such as Australia and the United States to investigate the problem. The former Attorney General of PNG, Mr. Kua formed a task-force to investigate the corruption. When the task-force turned their attention to Prime Minister O’Neil he not only disbanded the task-force but fired Attorney General Kua and the police commissioner at the time. This reaction from Prime Minister O’Neil was not only in response to the investigation turning toward him but also because the task-force and the police issued an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister. O’Neil accused the task-force of being compromised by political and media ties.

O’Neil denies all allegations of corruption and obtained a court order to prevent his arrest. This order has been appealed in the PNG courts and the arrest warrant was upheld, O’Neil was told to cooperate fully with police. The Court also reinstated the corruption task-force to continue their investigations into the PNG Prime Minister and his government. Now that the Court has ruled on the arrest warrant O’Neil has said that he will cooperate fully with the investigation and police.

The former head of the task-force who was sacked by O’Neil, a Mr. Koim has visited Australia to leverage support against O’Neil.  He visited Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop as well several Australian newspapers in order to drum up support. There is support in PNG for the idea of appointing an Australian judge to oversee the investigation into the corruption as well as involving Australian police. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia is under increasing pressure to use Australian assets in the investigation to halt the flow of corrupt funds from PNG to Australia.

O’Neil has since appointed a new Attorney General, Mr. Pala. Mr. Pala has said recently that he believes all the transactions between O’Neil and the private law firm are legal and has advised the corruption task-force to drop the case against the Prime Minister. These statements have resulted in an outcry from supporters of the original investigation, who believe the new Attorney General is protecting Prime Minister O’Neil.

For more information, please see:

The Guardian — Papua New Guinea National Court Reinstates Anti-Corruption Task-force — 8 July 2014

The Sydney Morning Herald — Abbott Urged to Act on PNG Allegations — 24 June 2014

ABC Australia News Network — Court to Rule on Peter O’Neil Arrest Warrant Case — 27 June 2014

The Guardian — PNG Prime Minister to Co-Operate After Court Rejects Stay of Arrest Warrant — 1 July 2014

SBS News — Australians Join PNG Pm’s Fraud Probe — 17 June 2014

 

Afghan Presidential Candidate Abdullah Rejects Election Results

By Hojin Choi

Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

KABUL,Afghanistan – The Afghan election commission announced that presidential candidate Ghani won 56.4% of the vote in the runoff contest, and another candidate Abdullah earned 43.6%. During the initial contest, Abdullah had won the first round getting 45% against Ghani’s 31.6%. Although Ghani received the majority of the votes in the runoff, the validity of results is still unknown because millions of ballots are suspected of fraud.

Abdullah and his supporters officially rejected the result of the election. “We consider this as a coup against people’s votes,” said a spokesperson for Abdullah’s camp. Abdullah said during a TV news conference that he will not accept the election’s result unless the fraudulent votes are separated from the clean votes. Abdullah also insisted that outgoing president Hamid Karzai, Ghani, and the election commission colluded together against him.

Millions of ballots may be subjected to review. The Independent Election Commission acknowledged that vote rigging had occurred. The commission said nearly 23,000 polling stations and 1,930 ballot boxes would be audited, and the audit includes regions where the turnout was estimated as 100%.

Ghani claimed his grass-roots mobilization got voters out, despite mounting violence during the runoff.

Supporters of Ghani dancing on the streets in Kabul (Reuters)

Some of Abdullah’s supporters warned of “widespread civil unrest” and suggested establishing “parallel governments.” Ghani rejected this suggestion and said “talk of parallel governments will remain in the level of talk, because the historic responsibility that his excellency Dr. Abdullah and I as people who have submitted ourselves to the will of the people of Afghanistan have is to ensure the stability of this country and the legitimacy of the regime to which we have devoted our lives.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned both camps against trying to seize power. “There is no justifiable recourse to violence or threats of violence, or for resort to extra-constitutional measures or threats of the same,” Kerry said. “Any action to take power by extralegal means will cost Afghanistan the financial and security support of the United States and the international community.” Kerry added that the suggestion of parallel governments is a grave concern.

The Independent Election Commission emphasized that the announcement of tentative results is not a declaration of winner. Afghan Chief Electoral Officer Ziaulhaq Amarkhil was accused by Abdullah’s camp of fraud, and Amarkhil resigned immediately after releasing the results. He has denied any wrongdoing.

 

For more information please see:

Impunity Watch – Afghan Presidential Runoff Peppered with Over 150 Terror Attacks – 16 June 2014

New York Times – Tentative Results in Afghan Presidential Runoff Spark Protests – 7 July 2014

Wall Street Journal – Ghani Leads Afghan Vote, But Fraud Charges Hang Over Results – 8 July 2014

CBS – Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah rejects election results – 8 July 2014

Washington Post – Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah preemptively rejects election results – 6 July 2014

CNN – Ghani leads Abdullah in Afghan election, officials say – 8 July 2014

Reuters – Afghanistan’s Abdullah rejects election result as ‘coup’ against people – 7 July 2014

 

Violence in Central America Fueling Influx of Child Migration to the United States

By Kathryn Maureen Ryan
Impunity Watch Reporter, Managing Editor

WASHINGTON D.C., United States of America – Since last October, more than 52,000 Children, mostly from Central America, have been taken into U.S. custody in what has become the largest movement and detention of migrants into the United States since the Cuban Boat Lift. A Study published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees found that 58 percent of the unaccompanied children entering into the United States are motivated by safety concerns, fearing violence their home countries.

A group of young immigrants is stopped by the Border Patrol in Texas after they traveled to Mexico from Honduras El Salvador and crossed into the United States at the US-Mexico border (Photo Courtesy of The Guardian)

Several Central America countries have been racked by cartel and gang violence, fueled by drug and human trafficking. According to the United States Customs and Border Protection, “Salvadoran and Honduran children … come from extremely violent regions where they probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S. preferable to remaining at home.” Violence is also hitting Guatemala where many children are fleeing poor areas for both safety and economic opportunity. Thousands of the children entering the United States are unaccompanied, often sent to the United States by their parents who have paid human traffickers  under false promises that there children would be reunited with family members already in the united States as soon as they arrive on U.S. soil.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups advocating for the rights of migrants are calling for the children to be treated as refugees who are fleeing armed conflict in the form of gang violence in their home countries.

United Nations officials are pushing for many of the Central Americans fleeing to the U.S. to be given refugees status; arguing that they have been displaced by armed conflict in their home countries. Designating these children as refugees would put greater pressure on both the United States and Mexico to accept tens of thousands of people fleeing Central America.  Officials with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees say they hope to see movement toward a regional agreement on that refugee’s status for the migrants.

“They are leaving for some reason. Let’s not send them back in a mechanical way, but rather evaluate the reasons they left their country,” Fern1ando Protti, regional representative for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees said.

Today most people who have been granted refugee status are fleeing more traditional forms of political or ethnic persecution and conflict. If granted refugee status the Central America migrants would be among the first in the world to be considered refugees because they are fleeing gang violence and extortion.

When asked if the Obama Administration viewed the border crisis as a refugee crises White House spokesman Josh Earnest said it was “a humanitarian situation that requires urgent attention.” the said the Obama Administration wanted to ensure all child migrants were housed in “humane conditions” while authorities work to determine whether they should be allowed to remain in the United States. If not, he said, the Homeland Security secretary should be allowed “to exercise his discretion about repatriating” the migrants.

On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced it is seeking $3.7 billion from Congress to address the crisis and handle the influx of undocumented children crossing into the United States from Mexico. The funding would go to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State and Health and Human Services. It would help fund detainment and proper care of undocumented child migrants, speed up their court cases, step up the prosecution of criminal networks involved in the crisis, and improve foreign cooperation to address the root causes of the migration.

For more information please see:

The Guardian – ‘Flee Or Die’: Violence Drives Central America’s Child Migrants to US Border – 9 July 2014

National Public Radio – What’s Causing the Latest Immigration Crisis? A Brief Explainer – 9 July 2014

CBS News – U.N. Pushes for Migrants Fleeing to U.S. to be Called Refugees – 8 July 2014

Al Jazeera – US Border Sees Influx of Child Migrants –17 June 2014

CBC News: Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad: Who’s the bigger tyrant?

‘Nonsense’ to suggest that while Saddam was brutal, he wasn’t as bad as Assad, analyst says

For original article please see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/saddam-hussein-or-bashar-al-assad-who-s-the-bigger-tyrant-1.2699284 

By Mark Gollom, CBC News Posted: Jul 08, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 08, 2014 11:57 AM ET

Foreign affairs expert Robert Kaplan writes that the total number of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's victims, depending upon how you count, may reach upwards of a million.Foreign affairs expert Robert Kaplan writes that the total number of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s victims, depending upon how you count, may reach upwards of a million. (Nikola Solic/Associated Press)

 

Former war crimes prosecutor David Crane says the fullest extent of the brutality of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has yet to be uncovered.

“We were just given a tip-of-the-iceberg look of the horror,” saidCrane, one of the authors of a report into the atrocities committed by the Assad regime.

The report, based on thousands of images of mutilated corpses provided by a former Syrian police photographer, found evidence of 11,000 people tortured and killed in three detention facilities in and aroundDamascus. And with 50 other such facilities unexplored, the total numbers of human casualties could be “astronomical and horrific,” he said.

Stephen Rapp, head of the U.S. State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice, recently said that those “images of individuals that have been strangled, and mutilated, gouged, burned, starved” is “solid evidence of the kind of machinery of cruel death that we haven’t seen frankly since the Nazis.”

But Crane, who was chief prosecutor at the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, also stressed that evaluating the brutality of tyrants, especially through death toll numbers, places the focus in the wrong place.  And it’s why he takes some umbrage with a recent column by foreign affairs author and expert Robert Kaplan comparing Assad to Iraq’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Some tyrants far worse

“Even among tyrants, there are distinctions,” wrote Kaplan, a chief analyst for the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor. “Some tyrants are worse than others. It is important that we recognize such distinctions.”

Kaplan said it’s “nonsense” for anyone to suggest that while Saddam was brutal, he wasn’t as bad as Assad.

He notes that while 160,000 have been killed during the three-year conflict in Syria, in the Al-Anfal campaign, Saddam killed an estimated 100,000 civilians alone. Kaplan adds that Saddam likely killed tens of thousands following the first Gulf War, and that he initiated the Iran-Iraq war which killed hundreds of thousands.

“The total number of his victims, depending upon how you count, may reach upwards of a million. Saddam was beyond brutal,” Kaplan wrote. “The word brutal has a generic and insipid ring to it: one that simply does not capture what Iraq was like under his rule. Saddam was in a category all his own, somewhere north of the al-Assads and south of Stalin. That’s who Saddam Hussein was.”

But Crane said that Kaplan’s argument is somewhat misleading.

“I think you need to note what he says but also to really make the point that in reality it’s not about numbers, it’s about human beings,” Crane said.

Mideast Syria Candidates Glance‘We were just given a tip-of-the-iceberg look of the horror,’ said former war crimes prosecutor David Crane, one of the authors of a report into the atrocities committed by the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. (Vahid Salemi/Associated Press)

“The fact that one [of the dictators]

may have had different methodologies or had literally, by numbers, killed more than the other is frankly, in my opinion, not significant and actually can be misleading as to the intent,” Crane said. “And that is the widespread and systematic destruction of their own citizens.”

International law and war crimes expert Cherif Bassiouni said it’s difficult to compare tyrannical regimes and that it’s not just a question of total people killed but also the impact those killings have on a country.

“Every conflict is sui generis, every conflict has its own characteristics, has its own impact. And to try and quantify numbers in a given conflict and try to compare it to another is just totally impossible,” he said.

But Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Penn., agreed with Kaplan, noting a distinction can be made between Saddam and Assad.

“The interesting thing in terms of comparison is that Saddam’s system of brutality was one he instituted from the moment he came to power that was incessant, that was continuous. He ratcheted up when necessary but it was constant,” Barkey said.

‘Derived pleasure from killing’

“Assad, as much as he’s a hoodlum, he’s a two-bit dictator, did not engage in the kind of massive continuous stuff that Saddam has done. Saddam would kill just for the fun and pleasure of killing. He derived pleasure from the killing.”

Assad’s current behaviour, while horrible, is one of someone who is fighting for their life, Barkey said.  But in the case of Saddam, the whole system from the beginning was based on continuous violence against everybody — real and imagined enemies he said.

Barkey said one must also look at the two regimes during peace time and at war. During periods of conflict, both Saddam and Assad were equally brutal, using weapons of mass destruction, and engaging in indiscriminate bombing and shelling. But in non-conflict time, Saddam was far worse than Assad, he said.

Barkey also dismissed Rapp’s comparison of Assad’s regime to the Nazis, saying when the Kurds liberated the police stations and prisons in the north,”they found exactly the same thing — meticulous documentation on anybody who was killed, executed.”

“[Rapp] should know better. The moment you bring this comparison. First of all, you’re cheapening the massive horrors of World War Two. We need to protect that in many respects.

“But factually he’s not right. Saddam and the Khmer Rouge were worse. Even Rwanda, where 800,000 people killed in a matter of weeks, wasn’t there a machinery there too?”