Is Amnesty International abandoning human rights?
2 September, 2012 – By Bev Cotton – Uprooted Palestinians

The internationally renowned journalist, Greg Palast offers the following advice in his 1999 book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” – “if you are a member of Amnesty International, quit”. Mr. Palast’s brush with Amnesty was in a court case in which he was sued after quoting Amnesty research containing allegations against the multinational mining company, Barrick. Amnesty refused to verify their own research in court. As Palast says, “Amnesty wants journalists to report their material. I would say to any journalist that they would be completely, utterly and absolutely insane to ever cite Amnesty again.”

Failure to prioritise human rights

Why do increasing numbers of people believe that Amnesty has abandoned the cause of human rights? As Francis Boyle, ex board member of Amnesty International USA – and renowned expert in international law puts it:

“Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money… To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention… But if it’s dealing with violations of human rights by the United States, Britain, Israel, then it’s like pulling teeth to get them to really do something on the situation”.

Moral flatulence

That was in 2001. A neater solution to this problem has been found by Amnesty since – to issue very little meaningful data at all. Issues from the entire region of the Middle East and North Africa are now channeled through a single Amnesty office, MENA. As its UK director describes it “I should say a little about the campaign I manage here – Crisis & Transition in the Middle East & North Africa (MENA). It’s fair to say it is an ambitious, labyrinthine and long term campaign but when I am asked what it is really about I say “Solidarity with people peacefully demanding change”.

All of which means, well, nothing really. When asked recently why Amnesty International Ireland (AII) had failed to issue any briefings over the past year about a supposedly priority campaign for Zimbabwe, the answer was that the whole organisation was ‘still in transition’. In transition to what, exactly? And from what? Meanwhile MENA, originally a military campaign term, serves to bury the vast scale of human rights abuses in Palestine by losing them in a stream of information about a region that includes 523 million people and 6% of the world’s population.

As ex Amnesty supporter Paul De Rooij writes in CounterPunch:

“Reading AI’s reports doesn’t reveal why there is a conflict in the area in the first place…. The portrayal of violence is stripped of its context, and historical references are minimal…. The fact that Palestinians have endured occupation, expulsion, and dispossession for many decades, the explanation of why the conflict persists, is nowhere highlighted in its reports”.

He concludes, “today, most AI pronouncements range between moral flatulence and moral fraudulence”.

Lack of transparency

You would think that transparency would be a cornerstone of a human rights campaign group. However, Amnesty International Ireland has still failed, even after a resolution calling for openness at its 2011 AGM, to publish its staff salaries. The approximately 20 local groups are sending no more than a few thousand euro each to AII annually, and membership subscription internationally is falling after the scandal over the expensive and unexplained sacking of two of Amnesty’s senior staff in 2009. When asked by members of the Clonakilty group recently a representative of AII was unable to explain what its sources of funding are, how much they receive and on what it is spent.

Meanwhile AII is running a Mental Health Campaign part funded by Atlantic Philanthropies that bears an uncanny resemblance to the government’s rationale for its attempts to reduce services and cut funding. AII threw itself behind government closures of allegedly failing residential centres in the claimed expectation that “care in the community” was a more humane policy. Investing in improving the much needed centres was off the agenda. As was expected by many who depend on them, closures of residential services have gone ahead speedily and efficiently while the corresponding funds for care in the community have not only failed to materialise but existing funding has now been drastically cut. …more

Bahrain hits back at child detention claims on ‘CNN’
4 September, 2012 – Gulf News

BAHRAIN has hit back at claims made in a CNN interview that an 11-year-old alleged tyre burner was detained in prison, branding the allegations as baseless.

The Information Affairs Authority (IAA) yesterday issued a statement in which it said the boy, Ali Hassan, had actually been held at the Bahrain Juvenile Care Centre from May 14 to June 11.

It was responding to comments by opposition activist Lamees Dhaif in an article that appeared on CNN’s website on August 15.

“We reiterate that he was not in jail and was not detained for months; nor was he charged with participating in an illegal gathering,” the IAA said.

“Hassan participated in burning tyres in a roadblock and after several warnings to clear the street he was held in the Bahrain Juvenile Care Centre from May 14 to June 11.”

The IAA said the child had received “academic tutoring, social services and healthcare from a centre that is acknowledged by many, including international experts, for its high standard of care and state-of-the-art facilities”.

“Contrary to (Ms) Dhaif’s claim, this case was not an attempt to send a warning to protesters,” it added.

“Unfortunately juvenile delinquency is common around the world and it is Bahrain’s obligation to not only maintain the well-being of the boy, but that of the community as well.”

The IAA said that Bahrain’s government was “firmly committed” to punishing all human rights violators and did not resort to arbitrary arrests as claimed, highlighting that one Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) recommendation was to oblige police officers to show warrants upon arrest and grant suspects access to a lawyer.

It also defended the impartiality of the judiciary.

“It should also be noted that the National Security Agency’s mandate to gather intelligence has been restricted and they are no longer authorised to arrest or detain individuals on their own authority,” it added.

“Despite (Ms) Dhaif’s false allegation, the judiciary system is an independent body that holds those who break the law to account, whether they are vandals or members of security forces.”

Prosecution

The IAA pointed to the prosecution of 15 policemen following an investigation by the Public Prosecution.

“Bahrain is firmly committed to punish all human rights violators and provide citizens the opportunity to express themselves freely,” it said.

It revealed the government had permitted 88 rallies and gatherings since the beginning of the year, at which participants had been able to express their views.

“It is also important to highlight that Bahrain currently has 20 political groups, including opposition groups such as Al Wefaq National Islamic Society, who vividly voice their complaints and concerns,” it said.

“So to claim that Bahrain is intentionally targeting activists is outrageous when the government has facilitated the platform to voice their concerns.”

The IAA also defended Bahrain’s close ties to the UK and US.

“The US provided security assistance to protect the country from foreign threats and not for crowd control as (Ms) Dhaif suggests,” it said.

It also pledged that reforms initiated by His Majesty King Hamad in 2001 would continue and “will not be hijacked by any special interest group from the opposition, especially one that does not represent the vast majority in Bahrain and protect the rights of all”.
…more

Bahrain says uprising leaders had contact with Iran, Hezbollah
4 September, 2012 – Reuters – The Daily Star

DUBAI: Leaders of a Bahraini uprising last year, whose prison sentences were upheld by a court on Tuesday, were in “intelligence contact” with Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, a public prosecution official said on Tuesday.

“It is established clearly to us from this verdict that some of the accused had relations and strived to have relations and intelligence contacts with a foreign organisation, which is Hezbollah, which works in the interests of Iran,” Wael Boualai told a news conference, in comments carried by state media.

Six of the 20 men whose sentences were upheld were found guilty of “intelligence contacts with foreign bodies”. They were also jailed for offences including trying to overturn the system of government and violating the constitution. The 20 deny all charges against them, saying they wanted only democratic reform.
…source

Bahrain: Iranian translators swopped us for Syria in ‘oppressive regime’ speech
By Associated Press- 1 September – 2012 – PDMI

MANAMA, Bahrain — Bahrain says it has filed a formal protest with Iran over a broadcast translation that wrongly substituted Bahrain for Syria in a speech by Egypt’s president.

A statement by Bahrain’s government says Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi referred to the Syrian rebels fighting an “oppressive” regime during a speech at a Tehran conference Thursday.

Instead, Bahrain claims Iranian state TV replaced the word “Syria” with “Bahrain” in its Farsi translation.

Morsi’s speech was an embarrassment for Iran, which is a close ally of the Syrian regime.

But Shiite power Iran has frequently criticized Bahrain’s authorities for crackdowns against mostly Shiite protesters seeking greater political rights.

Bahrain says the formal complaint was filed Saturday with an Iranian diplomat.

…source

Bahrain: Appeals Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Opposition Leaders
4 September, 2012 – by Amira Al Hussaini – Global Voices

Bahrain’s High Court of Appeals upheld jail sentences against 20 opposition figures accused of plotting to overthrow the regime today [September 4, 2012]. While international human rights organisations describes them as “prisoners of conscience,” Bahraini authorities and the local Press call them “terrorists” for their role in anti-government protests, which started in Bahrain on February 14, 2011.

Eight of them have been slapped with life in prison; the rest have been given jail sentences ranging from five to 15 years.

Supporters called the trial a sham, rejecting its ruling and pledging to continue with anti-government demonstrations. …more

Sept 4. Bahraini Court Verdicts Could Be Transformative
31 August, 2012 – Human Rights First

Washington, DC – Human Rights First today said that expected Sept. 4 verdicts in three closely watched Bahraini court cases could make Tuesday a potentially transformative day for human rights in the Kingdom. Among those who will learn their fate on Tuesday are 13 leading dissidents, 28 medics and Zianab Al Khawaja, all prosecuted for exposing the truth behind the Bahrain regime’s false claims of reform.

“It’s hard to remember a day that could – if the right decisions are made – change the human rights picture so radically in Bahrain, “said Human Rights First’s Brian Dooley. “If the Bahrain regime has the vision and courage to release these people it could be a game changer.”

Appeal verdicts are expected in the cases of 13 of Bahrain’s most prominent dissidents who, after a show trial in military court, were originally sentenced in June 2011 to terms of between two years and life in prison. That group includes leading human rights activist Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, founder of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, as well as Hassan Mshaima’, ‘Abdelwahab Hussain, Dr ‘Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, Mohammad Habib al-Miqdad, Abdel-Jalil al-Miqdad, Sa’eed Mirza al-Nuri, Mohammad Hassan Jawwad, Mohammad ‘Ali Ridha Isma’il, Abdullah al-Mahroos, ‘Abdul-Hadi ‘Abdullah Hassan al-Mukhodher, Ebrahim Sharif, Salah ‘Abdullah Hubail al-Khawaja.. The men were convicted of various charges, including “setting up terror groups to topple the royal regime and change the constitution.” In May 2011, Dooley was denied entry at the courtroom when he arrived to observe the 13 men’s military trial.

He was at an early court hearing for the 28 medics in March 2012. The 28 medical professionals awaiting verdicts on Tuesday include nurses, consultants, surgeons and ambulance drivers. The charge sheets against them include inciting hatred against the regime and taking part in an illegal gathering. The medics dispute the charges and have maintained that they were just doing their jobs as medics. One of the medics, Dr Nabeel Tammam, told Human Rights First, “They have no case against the medics, all confessions were taken under torture.”

In addition to treating those injured in the uprising, Dooley notes that the medics were likely targeted by the regime for telling the world what was happening in Bahrain or for being perceived as associated with the protests. Another 20 medics who were sentenced by the military court in September 2011 had their appeal verdicts announced on June 14.

On Tuesday, Zainab Al Khawaja will also hear the verdict against her for peaceful protesting against the regime. She is currently in detention awaiting the decision. …source

Ayatollah Khamenei to US: Change your Behavior
Ali Rizk – Moqawama Specials

The alarm expressed by “Israel” over UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s participation in the NAM summit in Tehran is not merely related to Ban’s engagement with high ranking Iranian officials. Rather “Israeli” premier Benjamin Netanyahu was so angry with Ban’s participation, describing it as “a big mistake”, because he knows that it means Western, and specifically US engagement with Tehran. According to certain Iranian media websites, Ban decided to head to Iran upon the insistence of former US assistant secretary of state Jeffrey Feltman, who was recently appointed as Ban’s undersecretary for political affairs, and who accompanied the UN chief on this trip. Ban’s meeting with the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei actually does fit in with the Obama style approach towards the Islamic Republic.

Since coming into office, Obama has sought to communicate directly with Ayatollah Khamenei having sent letters addressed directly to the leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The “traces of the American administration” were also evident in Ban’s statements. At a time where US officials worry about a possible “Israeli” suicide mission to strike Iran, which would prove catastrophic for US interests and for “Israel” itself, Ban called on the Islamic Republic to show cooperation regarding its peaceful nuclear program. MORE IMPORTANTLY the UN chief urged the Islamic Republic to tone down its anti-“Israeli” rhetoric saying:
“I strongly reject threats by any member state to destroy another or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust.”

At a time where there are elevated fears in Washington about Netanyahu going ahead with a possible military adventure, one of the ways in which the Obama administration could use leverage against Netanyahu would be to have Iran’s leadership reiterate that its nuclear program is indeed for peaceful purposes and at the same time tone down its anti-“Israeli” approach.

On the other hand Ban made reference to Iran’s significant weight as a regional player which could play a role in putting an end to the crisis in Syria. Here the US can be seen as showing its recognition of Iran as an indispensable regional player. But taking into account what was mentioned above regarding “Israel”, Washington appears to be saying that it has no problem with Iran playing a major regional role if Tehran makes some adjustments to its stances towards “Israel”. Put in another way : “change your behavior, only with regards to “Israel””.

Then came the response of the Iranian supreme leader. In a speech opening the NAM summit Ayatollah Khamenei once again underscored that his country was against weapons of mass destruction describing their use as “an unforgivable sin”. But with respect to “Israel” he made it clear that it was “Israel” that was the source of instability and the hostile party with its policies against the Palestinians and its ongoing threats to launch war on Iran, referring to “Israeli” leaders as “bloodthirsty wolves”. But what was most significant was what he said towards the end of his speech. In response to the calls to change behavior towards “Israel”, Ayatollah Khamenei told Washington to do just the same: change American behavior and policies towards “Israel”.

The Iranian supreme leader said that “Israel” was causing the US a headache and that the ongoing support for “Israel” was becoming too costly for the United States. He also said that American officials should “show courage and opt for the referendum solution” regarding Palestine and stop what he called the US “astronomical spending” on “Israel”.

These statements by Ayatollah Khamenei do indeed show signs of a new world order which the supreme leader also referred to in its speech. In fact this new world order and Iran’s role in it became evident ever since Obama, who belongs to the realist school of thought, came to the White House advocating a new approach towards Iran realizing that the US is no longer in a position to continue hostile policies towards certain countries.

The US president however, has bowed down to “Israeli” pressures so far and has set records in military assistance to the Israeli government. This “bowing down to “Israel”” will only cost the US more as the Islamic awakening in the region signals the beginning of a period where the people are the source of legitimacy. And the stance of the people towards “Israel” is no secret to anyone. …source

In a satirical poem titled “When,” posted on Arabic reformist websites including www.aafaq.org , reformist Saudi author and journalist Wajeha Al-Huwaider lamented what she regards as the conditions in the Arab world. In the introduction to this poem, she wrote: “‘When’ is an ode to the troubles of the Arab citizen. Both men and women participated in its [writing], and it is still open to additions. This ode will be hung on the walls of the palaces of the Arab rulers, [1] so feel free to add you contributions.”

Saudi Arabia: The Arab Woman; The Muslim Country
31 August – by from aafaq.com – Poetry by Wajeha Al-Huwaider

The following are excerpts from the poem “When”:

“When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner – you know that you are in an Arab country…

“When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity – do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.

“When religion has control over science – you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.

“When clerics are referred to as ‘scholars’ – don’t be astonished, you are in an Arab country.

“When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and whom nobody is permitted to criticize – do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.

“When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery – do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.

“When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but [see them] seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions [in the government] – do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

“When monarchies turn into theocracies, and republics into hybrids of monarchy and republic – do not be taken aback, you are in an Arab country.

“When you find that the members of parliament are nominated [by the ruler], or else that half of them are nominated and the other half have bought their seats through bribery… – you are in an Arab country…

“When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less – do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

“When you see that the authorities chop off a man’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread or a penny, but praise and glorify those who steal billions – do not be too surprised, you are in an Arab country…

“When you are forced to worship the Creator in school and your teachers grade you for it – you can be sure that you are in an Arab country…

“When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes – you are in an Arab country…

“When a boy learns about menstruation and childbirth but not about his own [body] and [the changes] it undergoes in puberty – roll out your prayer mat and beseech Allah to help you deal with your crisis, for you are in an Arab country…

“When land is more important than human beings – you are in an Arab country…

“When covering the woman’s head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland – do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…

“When minorities are persecuted and oppressed, and if they demand their rights, are accused of being a fifth column or a Trojan horse – be upset, you are in an Arab country…

“When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time – bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.

“When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot – place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…

“When at any time, there can be a knock on your door and you will be dragged off and buried in a dark prison – you are in an Arab country…

“When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people – you can be certain that you are in an Arab country.”

Endnotes: [1] This is an allusion to the Seven Mu’allaqat, famous sixth century odes which, according to Arab legend, were hung in pre-Islamic times on the walls of the Qa’ba in Mecca.

…source

Bahrain had signed the UN Children’s Rights Convention in 1992 in which every person under the age of 18 is considered a child. However, The Bahraini law states that those under the age of 15 are considered children.

Bahraini children victims of murder, arrest, torture, and harassment
31 August, 2012 – ABNA.com

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – Bahrain had signed the UN Children’s Rights Convention in 1992 in which every person under the age of 18 is considered a child. However, The Bahraini law states that those under the age of 15 are considered children.

Ali Al-Shleikh died at 14 years of age. Abdul Hussein died at 6 years of age due to suffocation from tear gas thrown into his home.

In Both cases the Bahraini government committed flagrant violations against children. A new statistic shows that the children under 18 who have been killed number 11.

This does not include the infants that have been killed due to the tear gas, and who number 30 infants. Sajida Faisal died at age 5 days, and Yahia Youssef Ahmad died at age one month.

The Bahraini Center for Human Rights concluded that there were at least 45 incidents of abortion that were caused by the tear gas as well, in addition to numerous cases of abnormalities among newborns which sheds light on the type of substances present in the tear gas.

Several professionals and activists have document and reported cases of child arrest, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, beatings, and torture after being charged with public rallying made up of five or more people with the intent of public unrest or committing crimes according to Article 179 of the Penal Code.

Children between 15 and 18 were especially subjected to torture and treated like adults in the police stations and investigation rooms.

This article has been condemned by the Basioni report for holding individuals accountable according to a perceived intent. The public prosecutor claimed, in a statement it issued in December 2011, that charges based on this article will be dropped since it coincides with the freedom of expression.

Some examples of such cases are: Abdul Karim Hasan, who was detained for 12 days and was beaten and verbally and physically abused. Ali Hasan Ali (Youngest detainee in the Bahraini prisons) who was detained for 25 days on charges of rallying and committing crimes. Ali Al-Sankis who was photographed naked and blackmailed with the produced photos. …source

Will Iran be US’s Melos?
By Peter Jenkins – Asia Times – 23 August, 2012

One of the most depressing aspects of all the talk about Israel or the United States destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities (and much else besides, no doubt) is the near absence of any reference to international law. Even so distinguished an expert as Anthony Cordesman seems to take it for granted that there will be no legal impediment to the US attacking Iran if a credible threat of an attack fails to intimidate Iran into making the concessions required to pacify Israel.

In my country, Britain, on February 20, 2012, members of the House of Commons spent five hours debating whether the use of force against Iran would be “productive” without dwelling more than cursorily on the legal aspects of the question.

How is one to account for this blind spot? Are ignorance and oversight to blame, or has respect for international law gone out of fashion?

It’s hard to believe that anyone who has policy-making responsibilities that involve other states, or who takes a professional interest in such policy-making, can be unaware of what the bed-rock of the post-1945 international system has to say about war-making. The United Nations Charter was drafted to be understood by a much wider readership than international law-focused lawyers. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2 of the Charter could hardly be clearer:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Read in conjunction with Article 1, which spells out the Purposes of the UN, and Articles 39 to 50, which detail how the Security Council should react to “Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression”, these paragraphs suggest that the use of force by one state against another state is only lawful if the Security Council authorizes it.

An exception to this rule can be found in Article 51 of the Charter: the right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member. But this is irrelevant to the Iranian nuclear dispute at the present juncture, for reasons set out most recently by Dan Joyner.

These points are so easily understood, and so clearly central to any proposal to attack Iran for its nuclear activities, that ignorance and oversight can hardly explain their widespread absence from the public debate, or the conspicuous failure of Western politicians to inject a reminder of the legal dimension into that debate. …more

How Quickly Will the U.S. Leave Afghanistan?

The Best Laid Plans – Losing It in Washington
By Tom Engelhardt – 26 August, 2012

In the wake of several deaths among its contingent of troops in a previously peaceful province in Afghanistan, New Zealand (like France and South Korea) is now expediting the departure of its 140 soldiers. That’s not exactly headline-making news here in the U.S. If you’re an American, you probably didn’t even know that New Zealand was playing a small part in our Afghan War. In fact, you may hardly have known about the part Americans are playing in a war that, over the last decade-plus, has repeatedly been labeled “the forgotten war.”

Still, maybe it’s time to take notice. Maybe the flight of those Kiwis should be thought of as a small omen, even if they are departing as decorously, quietly, and flightlessly as possible. Because here’s the thing: once the November election is over, “expedited departure” could well become an American term and the U.S., as it slips ignominiously out of Afghanistan, could turn out to be the New Zealand of superpowers.

You undoubtedly know the phrase: the best laid plans of mice and men. It couldn’t be more apt when it comes to the American project in Afghanistan. Washington’s plans have indeed been carefully drawn up. By the end of 2014, U.S. “combat troops” are to be withdrawn, but left behind on the giant bases the Pentagon has built will be thousands of U.S. trainers and advisers, as well as special operations forces to go after al-Qaeda remnants (and other “militants”), and undoubtedly the air power to back them all up.

Their job will officially be to continue to “stand up” the humongous security force that no Afghan government in that thoroughly impoverished country will ever be able to pay for. Thanks to a 10-year Strategic Partnership Agreement that President Obama flew to Kabul to seal with Afghan President Hamid Karzai as May began, there they are to remain until 2020 or beyond.

In other words, it being Afghanistan, we need a translator. The American “withdrawal” regularly mentioned in the media doesn’t really mean “withdrawal.” On paper at least, for years to come the U.S. will partially occupy a country that has a history of loathing foreigners who won’t leave (and making them pay for it).

Tea Boys and Old Men

Plans are one thing, reality another. After all, when invading U.S. troops triumphantly arrived in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in April 2003, the White House and the Pentagon were already planning to stay forever and a day — and they instantly began building permanent bases (though they preferred to speak of “permanent access” via “enduring camps”) as a token of their intent. Only a couple of years later, in a gesture that couldn’t have been more emphatic in planning terms, they constructed the largest (and possibly most expensive) embassy on the planet as a regional command center in Baghdad. Yet somehow, those perfectly laid plans went desperately awry and only a few years later, with American leaders still looking for ways to garrison the country into the distant future, Washington found itself out on its ear. But that’s reality for you, isn’t it? …more

“The Mexican State, repressor of justice against EZLN support bases”
August 2012

San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
August 23, 2012
Bulletin No 15

The Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Human Rights Centre (Frayba), is concerned about the violations of due process against Francisco Sántiz López (hereinafter Francisco), Tzeltal indigenous support base of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (BAEZLN), who is unjustly imprisoned in the State Centre for the Social Reintegration of the Sentenced No. 5 (CERSS No. 5) in San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas.

The Judge of the First District Court of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the state of Chiapas, declared unfounded the instance of freedom through the disappearance of information[i], in favour of Francisco, in an agreement published on 17 August this year, referring among other arguments, to the fact that at the time of his formal arrest and imprisonment, testimonies were taken into account from witnesses who reported that Francisco was in the company of armed men, which is insufficient evidence to consider that the data have disappeared[1]. It is clear that the judge failed to appreciate that the eight witnesses stated explicitly that Francisco was not carrying any weapons, the crime of which he is accused.

It is important to note, that in the Detention Order, the First Judge of the Federal Districts in the state of Chiapas did not give sufficient value to the testimonies: of the authorities nor of the witnesses who reported that the arrest took place in the county seat of Tenejapa, and that Francisco was not in Banavil, municipality of Tenejapa, at the time the attacks occurred; also the fact that the firearm was “secured” and delivered, along with 5 other weapons, to the court of indigenous peace and conciliation, by the people of this community, in addition he did not make any inquiries which suggested that Francisco was carrying the aforementioned firearm.

Currently, Francisco Sántiz is accused of the federal crime of carrying a firearm for the exclusive use of the Army and Armed Forces, equivalent to the crimes of murder and aggravated assault; on 22 March, the criminal action was terminated, through the withdrawal of the public ministry of local jurisdiction.

Frayba believes that during the arrest and prosecution of Francisco, the following rights have been violated: personal liberty, presumption of innocence, judicial guarantees, a fair trial and legal protection. The number of rights violated is evidence of the persecution of Sántiz Lopez

for the political work he has been performing in the Highlands of Chiapas, so there is a justified fear that the First District Court of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the state of Chiapas could issue a guilty conviction against Francisco.
In the view of this Human Rights Centre, the Mexican state is using the system of law enforcement and justice administration to criminalize the support bases of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, because they are disturbed by the progress in the right to self-determination through Zapatista autonomy, based on the Accords of San Andrés and the international benchmarks: ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally we ask individuals, communities, groups and solidarity organizations at a national and international level, to be attentive to the actions of the First District Court of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the state of Chiapas, and to join the actions taking place in the fourth phase of the Worldwide Campaign for the freedom of Francisco Sántiz Lόpez and Alberto Patishtán, “For 9 months: 9 Days of Action to Break Down the Prison Walls”, from Monday 27 August to 4 September this year, called by the Movement for Justice in El Barrio from New York, USA. …source

How two administrations and both parties made illegality the American way of life

Impunity at home, rendition abroad
16 August, 2012 – by Alfred W. McCoy – La Monde

After a decade of fiery public debate and bare-knuckle partisan brawling, the United States has stumbled toward an ad hoc bipartisan compromise over the issue of torture that rests on two unsustainable policies: impunity at home and rendition abroad.

President Obama has closed the CIA’s “black sites,” its secret prisons where American agents once dirtied their hands with waterboarding and wall slamming. But via rendition — the sending of terrorist suspects to the prisons of countries that torture — and related policies, his administration has outsourced human rights abuse to Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. In this way, he has avoided the political stigma of torture, while tacitly tolerating such abuses and harvesting whatever intelligence can be gained from them.

This “resolution” of the torture issue may meet the needs of this country’s deeply divided politics. It cannot, however, long satisfy an international community determined to prosecute human rights abuses through universal jurisdiction. It also runs the long-term risk of another sordid torture scandal that will further damage U.S. standing with allies worldwide.
Perfecting a new form of torture

The modern American urge to use torture did not, of course, begin on September 12, 2001. It has roots that reach back to the beginning of the Cold War and a human rights policy riven with contradictions. Publicly, Washington opposed torture and led the world in drafting the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Geneva Conventions in 1949. Simultaneously and secretly, however, the Central Intelligence Agency began developing ingenious new torture techniques in contravention of these same international conventions.

From 1950 to 1962, the CIA led a secret research effort to crack the code of human consciousness, a veritable Manhattan project of the mind with two findings foundational to a new form of psychological torture. In the early 1950s, while collaborating with the CIA, famed Canadian psychologist Dr. Donald Hebb discovered that, using goggles, gloves, and earmuffs, he could induce a state akin to psychosis among student volunteers by depriving them of sensory stimulation. Simultaneously, two eminent physicians at Cornell University Medical Center, also working with the Agency, found that the most devastating torture technique used by the KGB, the Soviet secret police, involved simply forcing victims to stand for days at a time, while legs swelled painfully and hallucinations began.

In 1963, after a decade of mind-control research, the CIA codified these findings in a succinct, secret instructional handbook, the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual. It became the basis for a new method of psychological torture disseminated worldwide and within the U.S. intelligence community. Avoiding direct involvement in torture, the CIA instead trained allied agencies to do its dirty work in prisons throughout the Third World, like South Vietnam’s notorious “tiger cages.” …more