Times Online
12 June 2010
By Hugh Tomlinson
Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.
The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.
The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.
Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.
Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”
In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.
Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.
12 June, 2010
Rwandan Higher Court to hear Appeal of Decision to Deny Peter Erlinder Bail on Monday.
The Higher Court will hear the appeal of the decision denying Peter Erlinder's bail on Monday, June 14 at 8 AM Kigali time (2 AM EST).
11 June, 2010
Congo Agrees to Back Project for Tracking Tin Origin, ITRI Says.
Bloomberg News
11 June 2010
By Anna Stablum
June 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic Republic of Congo, Africa’s largest producer of tin, agreed to support the implementation of a project to track supplies of metal from mines, industry group ITRI Ltd. said.
The country’s Ministry of Mines signed a cooperation accord and gave its “full support and authority” to trials to certify the origin of supplies, St. Albans, England-based ITRI said today in an e-mailed statement.
“We intend to start tagging of mineral batches within a matter of weeks,” said David Bishops, ITRI’s managing director in the statement.
Trial sites have been selected at Bisie in the province of North Kivu and Nyabibwe in South Kivu, with more sites in Katanga and other provinces under consideration, producer-backed ITRI said. The project’s second phase will concern tracking minerals and providing information on their origin, the statement shows.
Traxys SA and Amalgamated Metals Plc stopped sourcing tin ore, known as cassiterite, from eastern Congo last year after the United Nations and U.K.-based advocacy group Global Witness said the trade was supporting armed groups.
Congo is Africa’s biggest tin producer and ranked fifth worldwide in output from mines in 2009, according to an e-mail from ITRI on May 7. Members of the group’s board include Beerse, Belgium-based Metallo-Chimique NV and Yunnan Tin Co. The metal is used mainly to make solders.
11 June 2010
By Anna Stablum
June 11 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic Republic of Congo, Africa’s largest producer of tin, agreed to support the implementation of a project to track supplies of metal from mines, industry group ITRI Ltd. said.
The country’s Ministry of Mines signed a cooperation accord and gave its “full support and authority” to trials to certify the origin of supplies, St. Albans, England-based ITRI said today in an e-mailed statement.
“We intend to start tagging of mineral batches within a matter of weeks,” said David Bishops, ITRI’s managing director in the statement.
Trial sites have been selected at Bisie in the province of North Kivu and Nyabibwe in South Kivu, with more sites in Katanga and other provinces under consideration, producer-backed ITRI said. The project’s second phase will concern tracking minerals and providing information on their origin, the statement shows.
Traxys SA and Amalgamated Metals Plc stopped sourcing tin ore, known as cassiterite, from eastern Congo last year after the United Nations and U.K.-based advocacy group Global Witness said the trade was supporting armed groups.
Congo is Africa’s biggest tin producer and ranked fifth worldwide in output from mines in 2009, according to an e-mail from ITRI on May 7. Members of the group’s board include Beerse, Belgium-based Metallo-Chimique NV and Yunnan Tin Co. The metal is used mainly to make solders.
Congo Mines Ministry Creates Model Contract for Future Ventures.
Bloomberg
By Michael J. Kavanagh
11 June 2010
State-owned mining companies in the Democratic Republic of Congo will retain a 35 percent stake in all future mining ventures in the Central African country under a proposed “model contract” drawn up by the Mines Ministry.
The document will provide “an example” for all accords with Congo’s state-owned mining companies, Valery Mukasa, the deputy chief of staff for Mines Minister Martin Kabwelulu, said yesterday in an interview in Kinshasa, the capital. The model was completed last month and is awaiting approval by the government, he said.
“Thirty-five percent is the wish,” Mukasa said.
Congo holds 4 percent of global copper reserves, is among the world’s largest producers of cobalt and industrial diamonds, and is Africa’s largest producer of tin ore, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s website. Many of Congo’s current joint ventures wouldn’t meet the 35 percent threshold and the Mines Ministry hasn’t followed the policy consistently in the past.
The ministry’s desire to increase state-owned Gecamines 17.5 percent stake in Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.’s $1.8 billion copper and cobalt project in Congo is at the heart of an ongoing contract dispute between the two parties.
In December, Congo reduced the stake of state gold miner Okimo in Kibali Goldmines SPRL from 30 percent to 10 percent. The Kibali gold project, a joint venture with Randgold Resources Ltd. and AngloGold Ashanti Ltd., is the largest undeveloped gold deposit in Africa, according to Randgold.
The model contract also requires companies to pay a signing bonus of at least 1 percent of the value of their mineral concessions to the state-owned mining partner. Joint ventures will also owe the state-owned miner 2.5 percent royalty fees on gross receipts from all mineral product sales.
In addition, companies must agree to conform to the requirements of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the contract says. The initiative is a global standard that aims to improve accountability in the mining, oil and natural-gas industries.
By Michael J. Kavanagh
11 June 2010
State-owned mining companies in the Democratic Republic of Congo will retain a 35 percent stake in all future mining ventures in the Central African country under a proposed “model contract” drawn up by the Mines Ministry.
The document will provide “an example” for all accords with Congo’s state-owned mining companies, Valery Mukasa, the deputy chief of staff for Mines Minister Martin Kabwelulu, said yesterday in an interview in Kinshasa, the capital. The model was completed last month and is awaiting approval by the government, he said.
“Thirty-five percent is the wish,” Mukasa said.
Congo holds 4 percent of global copper reserves, is among the world’s largest producers of cobalt and industrial diamonds, and is Africa’s largest producer of tin ore, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s website. Many of Congo’s current joint ventures wouldn’t meet the 35 percent threshold and the Mines Ministry hasn’t followed the policy consistently in the past.
The ministry’s desire to increase state-owned Gecamines 17.5 percent stake in Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.’s $1.8 billion copper and cobalt project in Congo is at the heart of an ongoing contract dispute between the two parties.
In December, Congo reduced the stake of state gold miner Okimo in Kibali Goldmines SPRL from 30 percent to 10 percent. The Kibali gold project, a joint venture with Randgold Resources Ltd. and AngloGold Ashanti Ltd., is the largest undeveloped gold deposit in Africa, according to Randgold.
The model contract also requires companies to pay a signing bonus of at least 1 percent of the value of their mineral concessions to the state-owned mining partner. Joint ventures will also owe the state-owned miner 2.5 percent royalty fees on gross receipts from all mineral product sales.
In addition, companies must agree to conform to the requirements of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the contract says. The initiative is a global standard that aims to improve accountability in the mining, oil and natural-gas industries.
Rwanda court postpones Nkunda release hearing.
AFP
11 June 2010
A Rwandan military court in Kigali on Friday postponed the hearing of a plea to release Laurent Nkunda, a former rebel leader in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of his lawyers said. The hearing was moved to September 24th.
Aime Bokanga said that the postponement of the case which had been set to take place on Friday was due to the absence of main defence lawyer, Stephan Bourgon of Canada.
"He informed the tribunal that he was detained by another case in The Hague. The audience was therefore postponed until September 24," Bokanga said.
Nkunda has been held since January 2009.
A hearing due to take place on May 11 was called off for the lack of an interpreter, since the court decided that the debate would take place in Kinyarwanda, which Bourgon does not understand.
Nkunda's lawyers say General James Kabarebe -- former Rwandan army chief of staff who was appointed defence minister in April -- is responsible for the "arrest and illegal detention" of their client.
In March Rwanda's supreme court ruled that given Kabarebe's military status, it was not competent to hear the plea.
11 June 2010
A Rwandan military court in Kigali on Friday postponed the hearing of a plea to release Laurent Nkunda, a former rebel leader in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of his lawyers said. The hearing was moved to September 24th.
Aime Bokanga said that the postponement of the case which had been set to take place on Friday was due to the absence of main defence lawyer, Stephan Bourgon of Canada.
"He informed the tribunal that he was detained by another case in The Hague. The audience was therefore postponed until September 24," Bokanga said.
Nkunda has been held since January 2009.
A hearing due to take place on May 11 was called off for the lack of an interpreter, since the court decided that the debate would take place in Kinyarwanda, which Bourgon does not understand.
Nkunda's lawyers say General James Kabarebe -- former Rwandan army chief of staff who was appointed defence minister in April -- is responsible for the "arrest and illegal detention" of their client.
In March Rwanda's supreme court ruled that given Kabarebe's military status, it was not competent to hear the plea.
ICTR Appeals chamber seeks true facts on charges against Erlinder.
By RNA News with Hirondelle News Agency
June 11, 2010
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has instructed the Registrar to obtain all information regarding the exact nature and basis of charges against American lawyer Peter Erlinder, who was recently arraigned in Rwanda for “genocide denial”.
“The Appeals Chamber instructs the Registrar, on an urgent basis, to request the assistance of Rwandan authorities for the purposes of obtaining all information relating to the exact nature and basis of the charges brought against Peter Erlinder,” it said in its order dated June 9, 2010.
The decision follows a motion by ICTR-convict and former Rwandan army officer, Major Aloys Ntabakuze, seeking orders requiring the Tribunal’s Registrar to take immediate action to secure the release of Prof. Erlinder, his lead counsel in the pending appeal against the life imprisonment sentence he is facing.
Maj. Ntabakuze also sought orders to stop all proceedings against his counsel, who was arrested on May 28 and subsequently charged with offences related to "negation of the 1994 genocide".
Charges against Erlinder, he claimed, were directly connected to statements he made outside Rwanda, including before the Tribunal, in course of his defence, thus constituting intimidation and serious interference with the legal process and directly impacting his rights to a fair and expeditious trial.
He said the necessary treatment to protect performance of defence members’ functions was for the Tribunal to enjoin the Rwandan government to refrain from intimidating, harassing and interfering with their functions and drop the charges against Erlinder and release him immediately.
Erlinder, a Law Professor, is President of the ICTR defence lawyers association in Arusha. He had been in Kigali as part of defence team of an opponent to President Paul Kagame's regime, Victoire Ingabire, who is charged with negation of genocide, collaboration with a terrorist organization and spreading ethnic division.
June 11, 2010
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has instructed the Registrar to obtain all information regarding the exact nature and basis of charges against American lawyer Peter Erlinder, who was recently arraigned in Rwanda for “genocide denial”.
“The Appeals Chamber instructs the Registrar, on an urgent basis, to request the assistance of Rwandan authorities for the purposes of obtaining all information relating to the exact nature and basis of the charges brought against Peter Erlinder,” it said in its order dated June 9, 2010.
The decision follows a motion by ICTR-convict and former Rwandan army officer, Major Aloys Ntabakuze, seeking orders requiring the Tribunal’s Registrar to take immediate action to secure the release of Prof. Erlinder, his lead counsel in the pending appeal against the life imprisonment sentence he is facing.
Maj. Ntabakuze also sought orders to stop all proceedings against his counsel, who was arrested on May 28 and subsequently charged with offences related to "negation of the 1994 genocide".
Charges against Erlinder, he claimed, were directly connected to statements he made outside Rwanda, including before the Tribunal, in course of his defence, thus constituting intimidation and serious interference with the legal process and directly impacting his rights to a fair and expeditious trial.
He said the necessary treatment to protect performance of defence members’ functions was for the Tribunal to enjoin the Rwandan government to refrain from intimidating, harassing and interfering with their functions and drop the charges against Erlinder and release him immediately.
Erlinder, a Law Professor, is President of the ICTR defence lawyers association in Arusha. He had been in Kigali as part of defence team of an opponent to President Paul Kagame's regime, Victoire Ingabire, who is charged with negation of genocide, collaboration with a terrorist organization and spreading ethnic division.
U.S. Criminal Defense Bar Challenges Rwandan Pres. Kagame to End his Campaign of Intimidation against Defense Lawyers.
For more information:
Jack King
Director, Public Affairs
(202) 872-8600 x228
jack@nacdl.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington, DC (June 10, 2010) – The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) condemns the unrelenting intimidation of American criminal defense lawyers in Rwanda and reiterates its call for the prompt release of Prof. Peter Erlinder together with an immediate end to the Rwandan government’s interference with the criminal defense function. NACDL stands with the 30 defense lawyers practicing before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) who together, in a statement to the court and the UN Security Council, said they fear for their own safety and have demanded Peter Erlinder's immediate release.
Mr. Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn., was arrested on May 28, 2010, on charges of “genocide ideology,” or genocide denial, for statements allegedly made before the ICTR and in the United States. He has been representing presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, an opposition candidate in upcoming elections who herself was recently arrested on the same charge and released. Prof. Erlinder was denied bail on June 7 and remains in police custody. In addition, it is now being reported that NACDL member Peter Robinson, a Santa Rosa, Calif., defense attorney working in the ICTR, is being threatened with charges of contempt. In light of the arrest and detention of Prof. Erlinder, Robinson, who represents Joseph Nzirorera, the former President of the Rwandan National Assembly, is seeking to withdraw from his defense before the ICTR. It is further reported that Kurt Kerns, a Wichita, Kan., defense attorney and NACDL member, was threatened with arrest for “unauthorized practice of law” after allegedly referring to the police who arrested Erlinder as “punks.”
Taken together, these events, and the ongoing, outrageous detention of Prof. Erlinder, suggest an effort by the current regime to repress political opposition leaders as the August elections in Rwanda approach.
“While the genocide in Rwanda was truly a tragedy from which Rwanda has yet to fully recover, this blatant intimidation of respected criminal defense attorneys undermines the very basis of the criminal justice system in that nation,” NACDL President Cynthia Hujar Orr said today. “As long as the Kagame regime continues to interfere with criminal defense lawyers representing the accused, justice will remain out of reach for Rwanda. NACDL challenges the Kagame government to live up to the democratic ideals espoused by the Rwandan constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and to immediately cease this highly improper and self-destructive campaign of intimidation.”
NACDL also supports the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Betty McCollum on Tuesday (H.Res. 1426) urging the Rwandan government to release Prof. Erlinder and allow him to return to the United States, Orr said.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL’s 10,000-plus direct members in 28 countries – and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling more than 40,000 attorneys – include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness and promoting a rational and humane criminal justice system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
1660 L St., NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
(202) 872-8600 • Fax (202) 872-8690 • assist@nacdl.org
Jack King
Director, Public Affairs
(202) 872-8600 x228
jack@nacdl.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington, DC (June 10, 2010) – The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) condemns the unrelenting intimidation of American criminal defense lawyers in Rwanda and reiterates its call for the prompt release of Prof. Peter Erlinder together with an immediate end to the Rwandan government’s interference with the criminal defense function. NACDL stands with the 30 defense lawyers practicing before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) who together, in a statement to the court and the UN Security Council, said they fear for their own safety and have demanded Peter Erlinder's immediate release.
Mr. Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn., was arrested on May 28, 2010, on charges of “genocide ideology,” or genocide denial, for statements allegedly made before the ICTR and in the United States. He has been representing presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, an opposition candidate in upcoming elections who herself was recently arrested on the same charge and released. Prof. Erlinder was denied bail on June 7 and remains in police custody. In addition, it is now being reported that NACDL member Peter Robinson, a Santa Rosa, Calif., defense attorney working in the ICTR, is being threatened with charges of contempt. In light of the arrest and detention of Prof. Erlinder, Robinson, who represents Joseph Nzirorera, the former President of the Rwandan National Assembly, is seeking to withdraw from his defense before the ICTR. It is further reported that Kurt Kerns, a Wichita, Kan., defense attorney and NACDL member, was threatened with arrest for “unauthorized practice of law” after allegedly referring to the police who arrested Erlinder as “punks.”
Taken together, these events, and the ongoing, outrageous detention of Prof. Erlinder, suggest an effort by the current regime to repress political opposition leaders as the August elections in Rwanda approach.
“While the genocide in Rwanda was truly a tragedy from which Rwanda has yet to fully recover, this blatant intimidation of respected criminal defense attorneys undermines the very basis of the criminal justice system in that nation,” NACDL President Cynthia Hujar Orr said today. “As long as the Kagame regime continues to interfere with criminal defense lawyers representing the accused, justice will remain out of reach for Rwanda. NACDL challenges the Kagame government to live up to the democratic ideals espoused by the Rwandan constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and to immediately cease this highly improper and self-destructive campaign of intimidation.”
NACDL also supports the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Betty McCollum on Tuesday (H.Res. 1426) urging the Rwandan government to release Prof. Erlinder and allow him to return to the United States, Orr said.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL’s 10,000-plus direct members in 28 countries – and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling more than 40,000 attorneys – include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness and promoting a rational and humane criminal justice system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
1660 L St., NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
(202) 872-8600 • Fax (202) 872-8690 • assist@nacdl.org
10 June, 2010
General Jean-Bosco Kazura arrested in South Africa.
Rwandan News Agency
10 June 2010
Senior presidential aide on Security, Brigadier General Jean-Bosco Kazura, has been arrested for insubordination, the Defense Ministry announced Thursday evening in a stint that reportedly started from South Africa.
Gen. Kazura, who also heads the national football league FERWAFA, left the country without official permission from the Army according to Lt. Col. Jill Rutaremara. He did not say when the general left.
Rutaremara told state radio that the army later discovered that Gen. Kazura was in South Africa for the World Cup.
“They called him back and was arrested,” said newly promoted Lt. Col. Rutaremara.
According to the Army, even if Gen. Kazura had gone to South Africa on a FERWAFA ticket, he needed to have permission from the Ministry of Defense.
“No soldier - especially a senior officer, leaves the country without permission from his superiors,” said Rutaremara.
10 June 2010
Senior presidential aide on Security, Brigadier General Jean-Bosco Kazura, has been arrested for insubordination, the Defense Ministry announced Thursday evening in a stint that reportedly started from South Africa.
Gen. Kazura, who also heads the national football league FERWAFA, left the country without official permission from the Army according to Lt. Col. Jill Rutaremara. He did not say when the general left.
Rutaremara told state radio that the army later discovered that Gen. Kazura was in South Africa for the World Cup.
“They called him back and was arrested,” said newly promoted Lt. Col. Rutaremara.
According to the Army, even if Gen. Kazura had gone to South Africa on a FERWAFA ticket, he needed to have permission from the Ministry of Defense.
“No soldier - especially a senior officer, leaves the country without permission from his superiors,” said Rutaremara.
Rwanda’s Ombudsman Tito Rutaramara Should Apologise to Rwandans or Resign.
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Press Release
The Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda would like to express its great sadness and astonishment on verbal statements made by Rwanda’s Ombudsman/ Information Commissioner of the RPF-Inkotanyi Party, Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA, broadcasted on Saturday 5th June 2010, on BBC Gahuzamiryango’s talk show, Imvo n’Imvano and call on him to apologise immediately to all Rwandans or resign.
We are greatly saddened and surprised to hear someone of high standing like Tito RUTAREMARA, whom we respect, expected constructive advice from, and whom we have been expecting to fight for the disadvantaged and be the voice of the voiceless, to have spoken so abusively about the President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Frank HABINEZA, by stating that he is a "street kid" (mayibobo).
Frank Habineza is a Rwandan, staying in Rwanda and playing a role in the sustainable development of the country. He worked in the same government Tito RUTAREMARA is working in. His appointment as Personal Assistant to the Minister of Lands, Environment, Water, Forestry and Mines was confirmed by the cabinet chaired by the President of the Republic of Rwanda in 2005.
He is the current President of the African Green Parties Federation and also represents Africa on the Global Greens Coordination Committee. For someone like Tito RUTAREMARA, to say that he does not know Frank Habineza, who is playing a role in both continental and international politics, and call him a street-kid (mayibobo), is a big problem and a shame!! Perhaps it is true that some people are intentionally refusing to recognize the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, otherwise, the rest of the people know it very well and know him as the party's Founding President.
The leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda would like to remind Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA, that among its leadership there are also many other outstanding men and women, elders like him, who have contributed a lot to the RPF’s development and ascension to power, who he is now suddenly calling mayibobos simply because they have left the RPF and joined an opposition party. We would also like to remind him that all the members of the national committee are able to feed themselves and are not beggars, so calling them mayibobos is something grossly out of context.
Frank HABINEZA is playing a major role in the political development of Rwanda. It is now over ten months ever since he and fellow colleagues publically declared this. For Tito RUTAREMARA to say that he doesn’t know him and that he is a mayibobo, it’s simply an insult. These statements are destructive and undermine the credibility and honor of the National Ombudsman position.
If Rwandans are in agreement that we should all join hands for the betterment of our country and our elders like Tito RUTAREMARA do the opposite by giving us such a bad example, then there is no guarantee for a better future of our country.
We are wondering whether the articles on mult-party politics are no longer in our National Constitution-which Rwandans voted for (to remind you, we are not foreigners, we voted for it).
We also wonder if Rwandan politics does not accept democracy as a founding principle, and if this has become the reason for those starting opposition parties in Rwanda, which give constructive criticism, to be called criminals and mayibobos by the ruling party.
Rwanda’s Ombudsman also alleged that the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is lost and does not know what it should be doing, that instead of taking care of forests, floods, landslides and so on, that it is only abusing RPF. We would like to clarify the following:
A. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda does not abuse any one, it says the truth about what is happening in Rwanda and will continue to do so.
B. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is not lost, it follows the laws of the land. You cannot build a permanent house without a foundation. Protection of the environment is just one of the different principles of the party and Rwandan citizens are our number one priority and are part and parcel of the environment. The people are the foundation and the basis of everything. They are the ones who protect or destroy the environment.
We would like to inform Mr. Tito RUTAREMERA that besides our Principle of Ecological wisdom, we have other principles which include:
1. Participatory Democracy
2. Social Justice
3. Non-Violence
4. Sustainable Development
5. Respect for Diversity
6. Respect for Human Rights.
Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA also mentioned that he is aware of other Green Parties around the world. We would like to remind him that these parties all have the same principles the Global Greens follow and the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda has also subscribed to all of them.
Whenever the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is requesting for freedom of speech, freedom of association, participatory democracy, and/or sustainable development, it is within its constitutional and fundamental rights.
We are waiting for the party's registration from the Government of Rwanda so that we are able to do other developmental activities. We have constructive programs for Rwandans and we will start implementing them as soon as we get registered.
We would like to request all Rwandans to respect and give credit to all those who have constructive ideas. This way, we can all be happy living in our motherland.
The leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda respectfully requests the Rwanda’s Ombudsman, who is also one of the powerful advisers to the President of the Republic of Rwanda, to apologize to Rwandans and in particular to the leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda or resign.
Issued in Kigali,
10th June 2010
Frank HABINEZA,
Founding President, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Press Release
The Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda would like to express its great sadness and astonishment on verbal statements made by Rwanda’s Ombudsman/ Information Commissioner of the RPF-Inkotanyi Party, Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA, broadcasted on Saturday 5th June 2010, on BBC Gahuzamiryango’s talk show, Imvo n’Imvano and call on him to apologise immediately to all Rwandans or resign.
We are greatly saddened and surprised to hear someone of high standing like Tito RUTAREMARA, whom we respect, expected constructive advice from, and whom we have been expecting to fight for the disadvantaged and be the voice of the voiceless, to have spoken so abusively about the President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Frank HABINEZA, by stating that he is a "street kid" (mayibobo).
Frank Habineza is a Rwandan, staying in Rwanda and playing a role in the sustainable development of the country. He worked in the same government Tito RUTAREMARA is working in. His appointment as Personal Assistant to the Minister of Lands, Environment, Water, Forestry and Mines was confirmed by the cabinet chaired by the President of the Republic of Rwanda in 2005.
He is the current President of the African Green Parties Federation and also represents Africa on the Global Greens Coordination Committee. For someone like Tito RUTAREMARA, to say that he does not know Frank Habineza, who is playing a role in both continental and international politics, and call him a street-kid (mayibobo), is a big problem and a shame!! Perhaps it is true that some people are intentionally refusing to recognize the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, otherwise, the rest of the people know it very well and know him as the party's Founding President.
The leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda would like to remind Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA, that among its leadership there are also many other outstanding men and women, elders like him, who have contributed a lot to the RPF’s development and ascension to power, who he is now suddenly calling mayibobos simply because they have left the RPF and joined an opposition party. We would also like to remind him that all the members of the national committee are able to feed themselves and are not beggars, so calling them mayibobos is something grossly out of context.
Frank HABINEZA is playing a major role in the political development of Rwanda. It is now over ten months ever since he and fellow colleagues publically declared this. For Tito RUTAREMARA to say that he doesn’t know him and that he is a mayibobo, it’s simply an insult. These statements are destructive and undermine the credibility and honor of the National Ombudsman position.
If Rwandans are in agreement that we should all join hands for the betterment of our country and our elders like Tito RUTAREMARA do the opposite by giving us such a bad example, then there is no guarantee for a better future of our country.
We are wondering whether the articles on mult-party politics are no longer in our National Constitution-which Rwandans voted for (to remind you, we are not foreigners, we voted for it).
We also wonder if Rwandan politics does not accept democracy as a founding principle, and if this has become the reason for those starting opposition parties in Rwanda, which give constructive criticism, to be called criminals and mayibobos by the ruling party.
Rwanda’s Ombudsman also alleged that the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is lost and does not know what it should be doing, that instead of taking care of forests, floods, landslides and so on, that it is only abusing RPF. We would like to clarify the following:
A. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda does not abuse any one, it says the truth about what is happening in Rwanda and will continue to do so.
B. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is not lost, it follows the laws of the land. You cannot build a permanent house without a foundation. Protection of the environment is just one of the different principles of the party and Rwandan citizens are our number one priority and are part and parcel of the environment. The people are the foundation and the basis of everything. They are the ones who protect or destroy the environment.
We would like to inform Mr. Tito RUTAREMERA that besides our Principle of Ecological wisdom, we have other principles which include:
1. Participatory Democracy
2. Social Justice
3. Non-Violence
4. Sustainable Development
5. Respect for Diversity
6. Respect for Human Rights.
Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA also mentioned that he is aware of other Green Parties around the world. We would like to remind him that these parties all have the same principles the Global Greens follow and the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda has also subscribed to all of them.
Whenever the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is requesting for freedom of speech, freedom of association, participatory democracy, and/or sustainable development, it is within its constitutional and fundamental rights.
We are waiting for the party's registration from the Government of Rwanda so that we are able to do other developmental activities. We have constructive programs for Rwandans and we will start implementing them as soon as we get registered.
We would like to request all Rwandans to respect and give credit to all those who have constructive ideas. This way, we can all be happy living in our motherland.
The leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda respectfully requests the Rwanda’s Ombudsman, who is also one of the powerful advisers to the President of the Republic of Rwanda, to apologize to Rwandans and in particular to the leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda or resign.
Issued in Kigali,
10th June 2010
Frank HABINEZA,
Founding President, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Arrest of Rwandan opposition leader lawyer a blow to ICTR, international lawyers warn.
Daily Monitor
10 June 2010
By Alfred Nyongesa Wandera
An umbrella body for international criminal lawyers has warned that the continued detention of an opposition leader’s lawyer in Rwanda could deal a major blow to the operations of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
Addressing a Press conference in Kampala at the ongoing International Criminal Court Review Conference, lawyers attached to the International Criminal Bar (ICB) condemned the continued detention of their American colleague, Prof Peter Erlinder, who is defending Ms Victoire Ingabire, an opposition leader and candidate for presidency in Rwanda.
Ms Ingabire, is the leader of the United Democratic Forces (UDF), a political party that has up to date been denied opportunity to be registered to participate in the presidential poll due this August.
Related Stories
ICC, must determine crime of aggression, African states insist
ICC lead petitioner held, released
Arrest Mr. Bashir, ICC tells Uganda
Uganda’s position on crime of aggression still guarded
Ban Ki-Moon calls on states to support ICC
States yet to agree on crime of aggression
She is under house arrest and her aide put in custody for over a month now.
“Arrest of Erlinder violates fundamental human rights and the allegations against him pertain to the work he is doing at the ICTR. This is an attack on the independence of counsel and lawyers are afraid for their own security,” said Ms Allison Turner, ICB council member, said in Munyonyo on Tuesday.
Ms Turner said that in another case before the ICTR, a defence lawyer told the court that under the circumstances where he was at risk, he could not in good conscience continue representing his client.”
A Kigali court on Monday ordered that Professor Erlinder be detained, without having been charged with any crime. Prof Erlinder has been in been in detention since May 28.
The incident has prompted other defence lawyers at the UN tribunal, which sits in Arusha, Tanzania, to refuse to participate in proceedings.
"We hereby resolve to postpone all activities, other than those which strictly conserve the interests of our mandates, until such time as the minimum conditions or the normal exercise of our missions has been restored by the removal of threats," the statement says. "[We are] aware of the dangers which immediately and directly threaten most of our number," the statement reads.
The treatment of defence lawyers has prompted widespread international condemnation, with the US government calling for Erlinder's release.
The case is also likely to place pressure on the UK authorities, including the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been providing assistance to Rwanda prosecutors to facilitate the extradition of genocide suspects currently residing in the UK.
The case also comes amid increasing concern about freedom of information in Rwanda, after two main opposition newspapers – Umuvugizi and Umuseso – were targeted with a number of libel and privacy cases, and prohibited from publishing until after the coming elections.
10 June 2010
By Alfred Nyongesa Wandera
An umbrella body for international criminal lawyers has warned that the continued detention of an opposition leader’s lawyer in Rwanda could deal a major blow to the operations of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
Addressing a Press conference in Kampala at the ongoing International Criminal Court Review Conference, lawyers attached to the International Criminal Bar (ICB) condemned the continued detention of their American colleague, Prof Peter Erlinder, who is defending Ms Victoire Ingabire, an opposition leader and candidate for presidency in Rwanda.
Ms Ingabire, is the leader of the United Democratic Forces (UDF), a political party that has up to date been denied opportunity to be registered to participate in the presidential poll due this August.
Related Stories
ICC, must determine crime of aggression, African states insist
ICC lead petitioner held, released
Arrest Mr. Bashir, ICC tells Uganda
Uganda’s position on crime of aggression still guarded
Ban Ki-Moon calls on states to support ICC
States yet to agree on crime of aggression
She is under house arrest and her aide put in custody for over a month now.
“Arrest of Erlinder violates fundamental human rights and the allegations against him pertain to the work he is doing at the ICTR. This is an attack on the independence of counsel and lawyers are afraid for their own security,” said Ms Allison Turner, ICB council member, said in Munyonyo on Tuesday.
Ms Turner said that in another case before the ICTR, a defence lawyer told the court that under the circumstances where he was at risk, he could not in good conscience continue representing his client.”
A Kigali court on Monday ordered that Professor Erlinder be detained, without having been charged with any crime. Prof Erlinder has been in been in detention since May 28.
The incident has prompted other defence lawyers at the UN tribunal, which sits in Arusha, Tanzania, to refuse to participate in proceedings.
"We hereby resolve to postpone all activities, other than those which strictly conserve the interests of our mandates, until such time as the minimum conditions or the normal exercise of our missions has been restored by the removal of threats," the statement says. "[We are] aware of the dangers which immediately and directly threaten most of our number," the statement reads.
The treatment of defence lawyers has prompted widespread international condemnation, with the US government calling for Erlinder's release.
The case is also likely to place pressure on the UK authorities, including the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been providing assistance to Rwanda prosecutors to facilitate the extradition of genocide suspects currently residing in the UK.
The case also comes amid increasing concern about freedom of information in Rwanda, after two main opposition newspapers – Umuvugizi and Umuseso – were targeted with a number of libel and privacy cases, and prohibited from publishing until after the coming elections.
20-seat loss forces early exit for Dutch PM as party leader.
CNN
10 June 2010
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende resigned Wednesday as leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance after exit polls from the country's national elections projected that his party would lose 20 of its 41 parliamentary seats.
Balkenende, who also gave up his seat in parliament, will remain in office as prime minister until a new coalition government is formed, said Xander van der Wulp, political editor for CNN affiliate NOS.
That process could take months because no clear winner was projected in Wednesday's elections.
The exit polls showed the center-right Liberal Party and center-left Labor Party tying with 31 seats each, while the far-right, anti-Islam Freedom Party of controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders more than doubled its seats, going from nine to 23 -- far ahead of analyst expectations.
With its strong showing at the polls, there was speculation that the Freedom Party could play a role in a forthcoming coalition government.
Opinion polls earlier had predicted the Liberal Party, led by Mark Rutte, would come out on top. Rutte had promised to lower taxes and dramatically slash government spending to bring the country's budget quickly back to surplus.
Former Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen's Labor Party was the other major contender in Wednesday's election. As mayor, Cohen built a strong reputation for easing community tensions by extending friendship and showing tolerance to the city's Muslims.
It was Labor's withdrawal from the coalition government earlier this year in a dispute over troops in Afghanistan that set the stage for the current elections. The issue has barely surfaced in the campaign.
The Liberal Party's Rutte has suggested he may be willing to form a coalition with Wilders' Freedom Party, but the choice could be divisive. Wilders has become internationally famous for his fight against the "Islamization" of the Netherlands.
"I believe we should have a stop of the mass immigration from Islamic countries," he said in an interview, "not because the people are bad, but because they bring a culture that really is against everything in our own values."
Wilders is currently facing trial on charges of inciting discrimination and hatred, charges related in part to his much-criticized film about Islam, "Fitna." The trial is expected to get under way later this year.
Wilders is also charged with offending a group of people, which relates to his comparison of Islam to Nazism.
The charges relate to comments Wilders made in a variety of media between 2006 and 2008, including an October 2006 interview with the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant in which he said he wanted to stop the "tsunami of Islamization," and another in September 2007 with Radio Netherlands in which he said the Quran should be banned.
"Fitna," which Wilders released online in March 2008 to international outcry, is also part of the charges against him. The film features disturbing images of terrorist acts superimposed over verses from the Quran in order to paint Islam as a threat to Western society.
Wilders would face up to two years in prison and a fine of 19,000 euros (about $23,000) for each charge if convicted.
10 June 2010
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende resigned Wednesday as leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance after exit polls from the country's national elections projected that his party would lose 20 of its 41 parliamentary seats.
Balkenende, who also gave up his seat in parliament, will remain in office as prime minister until a new coalition government is formed, said Xander van der Wulp, political editor for CNN affiliate NOS.
That process could take months because no clear winner was projected in Wednesday's elections.
The exit polls showed the center-right Liberal Party and center-left Labor Party tying with 31 seats each, while the far-right, anti-Islam Freedom Party of controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders more than doubled its seats, going from nine to 23 -- far ahead of analyst expectations.
With its strong showing at the polls, there was speculation that the Freedom Party could play a role in a forthcoming coalition government.
Opinion polls earlier had predicted the Liberal Party, led by Mark Rutte, would come out on top. Rutte had promised to lower taxes and dramatically slash government spending to bring the country's budget quickly back to surplus.
Former Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen's Labor Party was the other major contender in Wednesday's election. As mayor, Cohen built a strong reputation for easing community tensions by extending friendship and showing tolerance to the city's Muslims.
It was Labor's withdrawal from the coalition government earlier this year in a dispute over troops in Afghanistan that set the stage for the current elections. The issue has barely surfaced in the campaign.
The Liberal Party's Rutte has suggested he may be willing to form a coalition with Wilders' Freedom Party, but the choice could be divisive. Wilders has become internationally famous for his fight against the "Islamization" of the Netherlands.
"I believe we should have a stop of the mass immigration from Islamic countries," he said in an interview, "not because the people are bad, but because they bring a culture that really is against everything in our own values."
Wilders is currently facing trial on charges of inciting discrimination and hatred, charges related in part to his much-criticized film about Islam, "Fitna." The trial is expected to get under way later this year.
Wilders is also charged with offending a group of people, which relates to his comparison of Islam to Nazism.
The charges relate to comments Wilders made in a variety of media between 2006 and 2008, including an October 2006 interview with the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant in which he said he wanted to stop the "tsunami of Islamization," and another in September 2007 with Radio Netherlands in which he said the Quran should be banned.
"Fitna," which Wilders released online in March 2008 to international outcry, is also part of the charges against him. The film features disturbing images of terrorist acts superimposed over verses from the Quran in order to paint Islam as a threat to Western society.
Wilders would face up to two years in prison and a fine of 19,000 euros (about $23,000) for each charge if convicted.
Hotel Rwanda hero: Rwanda is a volcano waiting to erupt into mass violence.
CNN
10 June 2010
By Stephanie Busari
The hotel manager who saved the lives of more than 1,200 Rwandans during the 1994 genocide has warned that the country remains in the grip of ethnic tensions that could "erupt anytime."
Sixteen years after the mass killings, Paul Rusesabagina says lessons have not been learned from past mistakes.
During the genocide, Rusesabagina, the real-life inspiration for the 2004 film "Hotel Rwanda," helped to shelter more than 1,200 people at the Milles Collines hotel, where he was assistant manager and used many of his business and political connections to help keep the building safe.
Rusesabagina is now a human rights campaigner and a critic of Rwanda's Tutsi-led regime.
He told CNN: "We've changed dancers but the music remains. History repeats itself and we don't learn."
He added: "What happened in 1992, 1993 is now happening again. Since February 19, there have been many grenade attacks within the country. Rwanda is now a split country."
A spokesman from the country's foreign ministry declined to comment on Rusesabagina's claims, telling CNN: "We have nothing to say about this."
His comments come amid growing international concern over the arrests of Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, an ethnic Hutu and her U.S. lawyer.
According to the Rwanda news agency (RNA), Ingabire was arrested for allegedly propagating genocide ideology after she called for action to be taken against those responsible for killing Hutus during the 1994 conflict.
She was freed on bail and had her passport seized. Last month her U.S. lawyer Peter Erlinder was arrested as he flew into the country to defend his client. He was held on a genocide denial charge.
Erlinder a lead defense counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He remains in prison after being denied bail Tuesday, the agency reported. Rusesabagina has publicly called for Erlinder's release.
In a statement on his website, he wrote: "Professor Peter Erlinder was doing his job as a lawyer. In a civil society that is not grounds for arrest. If President Kagame considers Rwanda a democracy, he must release Professor Erlinder immediately."
Human rights activists, including Amnesty International, believe the arrests are politically motivated as Ingabire plans to challenge incumbent president Paul Kagame in the upcoming August presidential elections.
According to New York-based group, Human Rights Watch, the Rwandan government has denied a work visa to one of its representatives ahead of the elections and expelled her from the country.
In a statement, the organization said: "The Rwandan government's decision to deny a work visa to Human Rights Watch's representative in Kigali demonstrates a pattern of increasing restrictions on free expression in Rwanda ahead of August's presidential elections."
Earlier this year, Kagame hit back at the activists in an interview with CNN. He said: "If you are talking about people in the human rights community from outside...I have an issue with this.
"You tend to make a judgment of a country, 11 million people, on what a couple of people have said and (they) don't take into account what Rwandans say."
Kagame added, "Nobody has asked the Rwandans... it's as if they don't matter in the eyes of the human rights people. It's our own decisions in the end."
Kagame has been hailed a hero for ending the genocide that happened in the country between April and June 1994.
Rusesabagina says he has not lived in Rwanda since 1996 when he survived an assassination attempt.
He now lives in Belgium and travels the world campaigning to raise awareness of a bloody civil war that has killed at least six million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Asked if he considers his actions during the genocide to be heroic, he says: "I'm not a hero. I'm an ordinary man. People were taking me as a super human being but I'm as ordinary as you and many others."
10 June 2010
By Stephanie Busari
The hotel manager who saved the lives of more than 1,200 Rwandans during the 1994 genocide has warned that the country remains in the grip of ethnic tensions that could "erupt anytime."
Sixteen years after the mass killings, Paul Rusesabagina says lessons have not been learned from past mistakes.
During the genocide, Rusesabagina, the real-life inspiration for the 2004 film "Hotel Rwanda," helped to shelter more than 1,200 people at the Milles Collines hotel, where he was assistant manager and used many of his business and political connections to help keep the building safe.
Rusesabagina is now a human rights campaigner and a critic of Rwanda's Tutsi-led regime.
He told CNN: "We've changed dancers but the music remains. History repeats itself and we don't learn."
He added: "What happened in 1992, 1993 is now happening again. Since February 19, there have been many grenade attacks within the country. Rwanda is now a split country."
A spokesman from the country's foreign ministry declined to comment on Rusesabagina's claims, telling CNN: "We have nothing to say about this."
His comments come amid growing international concern over the arrests of Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, an ethnic Hutu and her U.S. lawyer.
According to the Rwanda news agency (RNA), Ingabire was arrested for allegedly propagating genocide ideology after she called for action to be taken against those responsible for killing Hutus during the 1994 conflict.
She was freed on bail and had her passport seized. Last month her U.S. lawyer Peter Erlinder was arrested as he flew into the country to defend his client. He was held on a genocide denial charge.
Erlinder a lead defense counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He remains in prison after being denied bail Tuesday, the agency reported. Rusesabagina has publicly called for Erlinder's release.
In a statement on his website, he wrote: "Professor Peter Erlinder was doing his job as a lawyer. In a civil society that is not grounds for arrest. If President Kagame considers Rwanda a democracy, he must release Professor Erlinder immediately."
Human rights activists, including Amnesty International, believe the arrests are politically motivated as Ingabire plans to challenge incumbent president Paul Kagame in the upcoming August presidential elections.
According to New York-based group, Human Rights Watch, the Rwandan government has denied a work visa to one of its representatives ahead of the elections and expelled her from the country.
In a statement, the organization said: "The Rwandan government's decision to deny a work visa to Human Rights Watch's representative in Kigali demonstrates a pattern of increasing restrictions on free expression in Rwanda ahead of August's presidential elections."
Earlier this year, Kagame hit back at the activists in an interview with CNN. He said: "If you are talking about people in the human rights community from outside...I have an issue with this.
"You tend to make a judgment of a country, 11 million people, on what a couple of people have said and (they) don't take into account what Rwandans say."
Kagame added, "Nobody has asked the Rwandans... it's as if they don't matter in the eyes of the human rights people. It's our own decisions in the end."
Kagame has been hailed a hero for ending the genocide that happened in the country between April and June 1994.
Rusesabagina says he has not lived in Rwanda since 1996 when he survived an assassination attempt.
He now lives in Belgium and travels the world campaigning to raise awareness of a bloody civil war that has killed at least six million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Asked if he considers his actions during the genocide to be heroic, he says: "I'm not a hero. I'm an ordinary man. People were taking me as a super human being but I'm as ordinary as you and many others."
ICTR defense lawyers call for release of US lawyer, threaten boycott.
The Jurist
9 June 2010
By Drew Singer
More than 30 defense lawyers from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) released a joint statement Tuesday calling for the release of detained US lawyer and JURIST Forum contributor Professor Peter Erlinder, who is being held in Rwanda on charges of genocide denial. The statement calls on international authorities to obtain Erlinder's release and to guarantee immunity for "every person engaged in seeking truth before any international or domestic jurisdiction." The lawyers indicated they will stop participating in proceedings at the ICTR until minimal steps are taken to remedy the situation. They also noted that Erlinder's arrest indicates a growing threat to the country's legal system stating, "anyone who is involved in the defence of an accused person - be they counsel, investigator, assistant or defense witness - runs the same risks and is exposed to the same threats of being criminally categorized as a "negationist" as defined in Rwandan legislation." The defense lawyers contend that Erlinder's arrest and subsequent denial of bail "seriously compromised" the ICTR's mission by undermining the independence of lawyers and preventing them from performing their duties without fear of suffering reprisals.
The ICTR launched contempt proceedings on Tuesday against one of the defense lawyers who signed the statement after he protested Erlinder's arrest by refusing to question witnesses in an unrelated case.
Rwandan police arrested Erlinder last month on charges that he denied the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Erlinder was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who was arrested in April on similar charges. Erlinder pleaded not guilty, but was deemed a flight risk and denied bail, despite his claim that he needed to return to the US for medical treatment following what Rwandan officials say was a suicide attempt, which his family denies. International groups including the National Lawyers Guild, the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have called for Erlinder's release, saying that the charges against him are politically motivated.
9 June 2010
By Drew Singer
More than 30 defense lawyers from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) released a joint statement Tuesday calling for the release of detained US lawyer and JURIST Forum contributor Professor Peter Erlinder, who is being held in Rwanda on charges of genocide denial. The statement calls on international authorities to obtain Erlinder's release and to guarantee immunity for "every person engaged in seeking truth before any international or domestic jurisdiction." The lawyers indicated they will stop participating in proceedings at the ICTR until minimal steps are taken to remedy the situation. They also noted that Erlinder's arrest indicates a growing threat to the country's legal system stating, "anyone who is involved in the defence of an accused person - be they counsel, investigator, assistant or defense witness - runs the same risks and is exposed to the same threats of being criminally categorized as a "negationist" as defined in Rwandan legislation." The defense lawyers contend that Erlinder's arrest and subsequent denial of bail "seriously compromised" the ICTR's mission by undermining the independence of lawyers and preventing them from performing their duties without fear of suffering reprisals.
The ICTR launched contempt proceedings on Tuesday against one of the defense lawyers who signed the statement after he protested Erlinder's arrest by refusing to question witnesses in an unrelated case.
Rwandan police arrested Erlinder last month on charges that he denied the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Erlinder was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who was arrested in April on similar charges. Erlinder pleaded not guilty, but was deemed a flight risk and denied bail, despite his claim that he needed to return to the US for medical treatment following what Rwandan officials say was a suicide attempt, which his family denies. International groups including the National Lawyers Guild, the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have called for Erlinder's release, saying that the charges against him are politically motivated.
09 June, 2010
House Bill Introduced to Demand Immediate Release of Peter Erlinder.
Jun 8, 2010 - Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.
HRES 1426 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1426
Urging the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and President Paul Kagame to immediately release human rights lawyer Professor Peter Erlinder from jail and allow him to return to the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 8, 2010
Ms. MCCOLLUM (for herself and Mr. ELLISON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
Urging the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and President Paul Kagame to immediately release human rights lawyer Professor Peter Erlinder from jail and allow him to return to the United States.
Whereas the Constitution of Rwanda, adopted on May 26, 2003, states that Rwanda is ‘Resolved to build a State governed by the rule of law, based on respect for fundamental human rights, pluralistic democracy, equitable power sharing, tolerance and resolution of issues through dialogue’;
Whereas there is an increasing pattern of restrictions of free expression in Rwanda ahead of the August presidential elections, including the denial of a work visa to a senior Human Rights Watch researcher and the crackdown of opposition members and journalists;
Whereas the United States Government has provided over $1,034,000,000 billion in United States taxpayer-funded foreign assistance to Rwanda since 2000, and an additional $240,200,000 is proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget;
Whereas Peter Erlinder is a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and has served as a lead defense attorney for the United Nationals International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania;
Whereas Peter Erlinder was arrested on May 28, 2010, in Kigali, Rwanda, and is currently being detained at Kicukiro Prison on charges of ‘genocide ideology’ based in part upon legal arguments made during his work as a defense attorney at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; and
Whereas United States Department of State Spokesman P.J. Crowley announced on June 3, 2010, that the United States Government was pressing the Government of Rwanda to ‘resolve this case quickly’ and that the Department of State hoped for Peter Erlinder’s release on ‘compassionate grounds’: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and President Paul Kagame to immediately release Professor Peter Erlinder from jail and allow him to return to the United States.
HRES 1426 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1426
Urging the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and President Paul Kagame to immediately release human rights lawyer Professor Peter Erlinder from jail and allow him to return to the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 8, 2010
Ms. MCCOLLUM (for herself and Mr. ELLISON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
Urging the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and President Paul Kagame to immediately release human rights lawyer Professor Peter Erlinder from jail and allow him to return to the United States.
Whereas the Constitution of Rwanda, adopted on May 26, 2003, states that Rwanda is ‘Resolved to build a State governed by the rule of law, based on respect for fundamental human rights, pluralistic democracy, equitable power sharing, tolerance and resolution of issues through dialogue’;
Whereas there is an increasing pattern of restrictions of free expression in Rwanda ahead of the August presidential elections, including the denial of a work visa to a senior Human Rights Watch researcher and the crackdown of opposition members and journalists;
Whereas the United States Government has provided over $1,034,000,000 billion in United States taxpayer-funded foreign assistance to Rwanda since 2000, and an additional $240,200,000 is proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget;
Whereas Peter Erlinder is a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and has served as a lead defense attorney for the United Nationals International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania;
Whereas Peter Erlinder was arrested on May 28, 2010, in Kigali, Rwanda, and is currently being detained at Kicukiro Prison on charges of ‘genocide ideology’ based in part upon legal arguments made during his work as a defense attorney at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; and
Whereas United States Department of State Spokesman P.J. Crowley announced on June 3, 2010, that the United States Government was pressing the Government of Rwanda to ‘resolve this case quickly’ and that the Department of State hoped for Peter Erlinder’s release on ‘compassionate grounds’: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and President Paul Kagame to immediately release Professor Peter Erlinder from jail and allow him to return to the United States.
Dakar retakes 1st military base from France.
SAPA
9 June 2010
The French flag was lowered at a military base in Senegal and the west African country's colours hoisted in a ceremony to mark the start of a handover of French bases to Dakar.
The symbolic move on Wednesday comes after Paris said it would close its bases and leave only about 300 troops in its former colony to provide training and expertise. A French statement on Tuesday said the move will allow Senegalese forces to improve and provide their own security.
In April, President Abdoulaye Wade announced that the government would retake the three French bases which housed some 1 200 troops. He said the handover would mark the final step in Senegal's separation from its former colonial master.
Senegal gained independence from France in 1960.
9 June 2010
The French flag was lowered at a military base in Senegal and the west African country's colours hoisted in a ceremony to mark the start of a handover of French bases to Dakar.
The symbolic move on Wednesday comes after Paris said it would close its bases and leave only about 300 troops in its former colony to provide training and expertise. A French statement on Tuesday said the move will allow Senegalese forces to improve and provide their own security.
In April, President Abdoulaye Wade announced that the government would retake the three French bases which housed some 1 200 troops. He said the handover would mark the final step in Senegal's separation from its former colonial master.
Senegal gained independence from France in 1960.
Oil firm blamed for Sudan war crimes.
AFP
8 June 2010
A consortium led by Swedish Lundin Petroleum is partly to blame for war crimes committed in Sudan between 1997 and 2003, a report by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan charged on Tuesday.
ECOS, an umbrella group of European organisations "working for peace and justice in Sudan", said it believed Lundin and its consortium partners Petronas Carigali Overseas from Malaysia and OMV Exploration from Austria "may have been complicit in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity" in Sudan.
Lundin Petroleum, previously called Lundin Oil, denied the allegations.
The 100-page report said Lundin's consortium, which also included the Sudanese state-owned oil company Sudapet, had signed a contract with Khartoum for oil exploitation in a concession area called Block 5A in the south "that was not at that time under full government control".
"The start of oil exploitation set off a vicious war in the area. Between 1997 and 2003, international crimes were committed on a large scale in what was essentially a military campaign by the government of Sudan to secure and take control of the oil fields in Block 5A," it charged.
The crimes - including widespread "killing of civilians, rape of women, abduction of children, torture and forced displacements" - were mainly committed by the Sudanese army and its main opponent the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).
The ECOS report, written with the support of European Union-funded NGO-network Fatal Transactions, however argued that the Lundin consortium had set the wheels in motion by signing its contract with Khartoum "without any guarantees that human rights and international law would be respected".
The report also charged that the Swedish, Austrian and Malaysian governments had "failed in their international obligations to prevent human rights violations and international crimes".
It called on them to investigate whether the consortium members knew or should have known that their activities "assisted those who were responsible for gross human rights abuses".
According to ECOS, some 12 000 people were killed or died from hunger, exhaustion and conflict-related diseases in the Block 5A from 1997 to 2003, while around 160 000 people were forcibly displaced.
In an open letter to Lundin Petroleum shareholders posted on the company's website, Chairman Ian Lundin insisted the report presented no new evidence of any wrongdoings, pointing out the company had refuted similar charges in the past.
"We again categorically refute all the allegations and inferences of wrongdoing attributed to Lundin Petroleum in the report. We strongly feel that our activities contributed to peace and development in Sudan," he wrote.
http://www.ecosonline.org/reports/2010/%5Eindex.html/UNPAID_DEBT_fullreportweb.pdf.html
8 June 2010
A consortium led by Swedish Lundin Petroleum is partly to blame for war crimes committed in Sudan between 1997 and 2003, a report by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan charged on Tuesday.
ECOS, an umbrella group of European organisations "working for peace and justice in Sudan", said it believed Lundin and its consortium partners Petronas Carigali Overseas from Malaysia and OMV Exploration from Austria "may have been complicit in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity" in Sudan.
Lundin Petroleum, previously called Lundin Oil, denied the allegations.
The 100-page report said Lundin's consortium, which also included the Sudanese state-owned oil company Sudapet, had signed a contract with Khartoum for oil exploitation in a concession area called Block 5A in the south "that was not at that time under full government control".
"The start of oil exploitation set off a vicious war in the area. Between 1997 and 2003, international crimes were committed on a large scale in what was essentially a military campaign by the government of Sudan to secure and take control of the oil fields in Block 5A," it charged.
The crimes - including widespread "killing of civilians, rape of women, abduction of children, torture and forced displacements" - were mainly committed by the Sudanese army and its main opponent the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).
The ECOS report, written with the support of European Union-funded NGO-network Fatal Transactions, however argued that the Lundin consortium had set the wheels in motion by signing its contract with Khartoum "without any guarantees that human rights and international law would be respected".
The report also charged that the Swedish, Austrian and Malaysian governments had "failed in their international obligations to prevent human rights violations and international crimes".
It called on them to investigate whether the consortium members knew or should have known that their activities "assisted those who were responsible for gross human rights abuses".
According to ECOS, some 12 000 people were killed or died from hunger, exhaustion and conflict-related diseases in the Block 5A from 1997 to 2003, while around 160 000 people were forcibly displaced.
In an open letter to Lundin Petroleum shareholders posted on the company's website, Chairman Ian Lundin insisted the report presented no new evidence of any wrongdoings, pointing out the company had refuted similar charges in the past.
"We again categorically refute all the allegations and inferences of wrongdoing attributed to Lundin Petroleum in the report. We strongly feel that our activities contributed to peace and development in Sudan," he wrote.
http://www.ecosonline.org/reports/2010/%5Eindex.html/UNPAID_DEBT_fullreportweb.pdf.html
France pulls bulk of soldiers from Senegal.
Reuters
8 June 2010
France announced on Tuesday it would close its military base in ex-colony Senegal and pull out all but 300 of its 1 200 troops there in a shift towards helping local African forces provide their own security.
Those French troops remaining would staff a military cooperation centre for the West African region, a statement issued by the French embassy in the capital Dakar said.
"The main goal of our defence cooperation is to help Africa launch its own collective security system, together with our longstanding training for officers of national armies," it said.
"France will no longer have a military base," it added, noting it would retain its two other African bases in Central African Gabon and the other in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.
France and Senegal have been negotiating the move for months and President Abdoulaye Wade's government initially expected a decision before its 50th anniversary of independence on April 4.
However there was no agreement by then and in a move which appeared to take France by surprise, Wade went on television on the eve of the anniversary to declare that Senegal was taking back all the military premises used by France, most of which are dotted around the capital Dakar.
"It's been a long process which has just finished but all's well that end's well. France is an ally and strategic partner for Senegal," Wade's spokesperson Mamadou Bamba Ndiaye said by telephone.
8 June 2010
France announced on Tuesday it would close its military base in ex-colony Senegal and pull out all but 300 of its 1 200 troops there in a shift towards helping local African forces provide their own security.
Those French troops remaining would staff a military cooperation centre for the West African region, a statement issued by the French embassy in the capital Dakar said.
"The main goal of our defence cooperation is to help Africa launch its own collective security system, together with our longstanding training for officers of national armies," it said.
"France will no longer have a military base," it added, noting it would retain its two other African bases in Central African Gabon and the other in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.
France and Senegal have been negotiating the move for months and President Abdoulaye Wade's government initially expected a decision before its 50th anniversary of independence on April 4.
However there was no agreement by then and in a move which appeared to take France by surprise, Wade went on television on the eve of the anniversary to declare that Senegal was taking back all the military premises used by France, most of which are dotted around the capital Dakar.
"It's been a long process which has just finished but all's well that end's well. France is an ally and strategic partner for Senegal," Wade's spokesperson Mamadou Bamba Ndiaye said by telephone.
Pakistan, Nigeria agree to enhance defence ties.
Daily Times
9 June 2010
Nigeria’s State Minister for Defence Murtala Shehu Yar’Adua on Tuesday called on Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar along with his delegation and both sides agreed to further broaden bilateral cooperation in defence, trade and economy for the mutual benefits of the two countries. Talking to the delegation, Mukhtar said that Pakistan attached utmost importance to its relations with Nigeria as the two countries enjoyed excellent relations and had unanimity of opinion on regional and international issues. On the occasion, Murtala underlined the need for promoting defence collaboration, and stressed the need to promote military-to-military and people-to-people contacts.
Later, both the ministers also signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on behalf of their respective countries to enhance defence collaboration, including cooperation to provide military training. Defence Secretary Athar Ali also attended the meeting.
9 June 2010
Nigeria’s State Minister for Defence Murtala Shehu Yar’Adua on Tuesday called on Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar along with his delegation and both sides agreed to further broaden bilateral cooperation in defence, trade and economy for the mutual benefits of the two countries. Talking to the delegation, Mukhtar said that Pakistan attached utmost importance to its relations with Nigeria as the two countries enjoyed excellent relations and had unanimity of opinion on regional and international issues. On the occasion, Murtala underlined the need for promoting defence collaboration, and stressed the need to promote military-to-military and people-to-people contacts.
Later, both the ministers also signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on behalf of their respective countries to enhance defence collaboration, including cooperation to provide military training. Defence Secretary Athar Ali also attended the meeting.
08 June, 2010
Law School Deans Demand Peter Erlinder's Release.
June 7, 2010
His Excellency James Kimonyo
Ambassador of Rwanda
1714 New Hampshire NW
Washington, DC 20009
Dear Ambassador Kimonyo,
We are deans of American law schools. As legal educators, we believe we have an obligation to nurture in our students the core values of the legal profession. These core values are threatened by the arrest in Rwanda of William Mitchell College of Law Professor Peter Erlinder. We are writing to respectfully request your assistance in ensuring his safety and release.
The U.N. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state that lawyers “shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions” and that “governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.” These principles also provide that “lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.”
As you know, Prof. Erlinder was in Kigali to pursue a legal defense for Madame Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. We believe that he has been arrested, interrogated, and imprisoned unjustly and for simply doing the work of the lawyer: advocating on behalf of his client.
Ambassador Kimonyo, we respectfully urge the government of Rwanda to abide by these principles, to refrain from harassment of lawyers practicing law consistent with their professional obligations, and to release Prof. Erlinder forthwith.
Very truly yours,
(Affiliations are listed for identification only and do not represent institutional endorsement.)
R. Alexander Acosta, Florida International University
William E. Adams, Jr., Western State University College of Law
John B. Attanasio, Dedman School of Law Southern Methodist University
Martin H. Belsky, University of Akron School of Law
Paul Schiff Berman, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.
Douglas Blaze, University of Tennessee College of Law
Jeff Brand, University of San Francisco School of Law
David A. Brennen, University of Kentucky College of Law
Shelley Broderick, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Doris DelTosto Brogan, Villanova University School of Law
Penelope Bryan, Whittier Law School
Judge John L. Carroll, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
James Ming Chen, University of Louisville
Annette E. Clark, Seattle University School of Law
Jay Conison, Valparaiso University School of Law
John Corkery, The John Marshall Law School
George Critchlow, Gonzaga University School of Law
Mary A. Crossley, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Marianne B. Culhane, Creighton Univ. School of Law
Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., University of Wisconsin Law School
Samuel M. Davis, University of Mississippi School of Law
Nora V. Demleitner, Hofstra University School of Law
R. Lawrence Dessem, University of Missouri School of Law
Matthew Diller, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
John M. A. DiPippa, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Allen Easley, University of LaVerne College of Law
JoAnne A. Epps, Temple University Beasley School of Law
John J. Farmer, Jr., Rutgers School of Law | Newark
Daisy H. Floyd, Mercer University School of Law
Alfredo Garcia, St. Thomas University School of Law
Bryant G. Garth, Southwestern Law School
Arthur R. Gaudio, Western New England College School of Law
Victor J. Gold, Loyola Law School
Peter Goplerud, Florida Coastal School of Law
Ken Gormley, Duquesne University School of Law
Stephen M. Griffin, Tulane Law School
Claudio Grossman, American University, Washington College of Law
Donald J. Guter, South Texas College of Law
Jack A. Guttenberg, Capital University Law School
Phoebe A. Haddon, University of Maryland School of Law
Dennis R. Honabach, Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University
Scott W. Howe, Chapman University School of Law
Eric S. Janus, William Mitchell College of Law
Robert H. Jerry, II, Levin College of Law, University of Florida
George R. Johnson, Jr., Elon University School of Law
Bernard V. Keenan, Suffolk University Law School
Robert Klonoff, Lewis & Clark Law School
Don LeDuc, Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Donald M. Lewis, Hamline University School of Law
David A. Logan, Roger Williams University School of Law
Richard A. Matasar, New York Law School
Philip J. McConnaughay, Penn State The Dickinson School of Law
Joyce E. McConnell, West Virginia University College of Law
Thomas M. Mengler, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Veryl Miles, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law
Blake D. Morant, Wake Forest University School of Law
Charles I. Nelson, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law
John O’Brien, New England Law | Boston
Maureen A. O’Rourke, Boston University School of Law
Jeremy Paul, University of Connecticut School of Law
Raymond C. Pierce, North Carolina Central University School of Law
Freddie Pitcher, Jr., Southern University Law Center
Peter Pitegoff, University of Maine School of Law
Lawrence Raful, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Drucilla S. Ramey, Golden Gate University, School of Law
Robert H. Rawson, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Douglas E Ray, University of Toledo College of Law
Richard L. Revesz, New York University School of Law
Jim Rosenblatt, Mississippi College School of Law
Irma Russell, University of Montana School of Law
Lawrence Sager, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Brad Saxton, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Kurt L. Schmoke, Howard University School of Law
Lloyd Semple, University of Detroit Mercy School of law
Michelle S. Simon, Pace Law School
Steven R. Smith, California Western School of Law | San Diego
Rodney A. Smolla, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Rayman L. Solomon, Rutgers University School of Law – Camden
Mathew D. Staver, Liberty University School of Law
Athornia Steele, Nova Southeastern University
Ellen Y. Suni, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Kellye Y. Testy, University of Washington School of Law
William M. Treanor, Fordham Law School
Kevin Washburn, University of New Mexico School of Law
John Valery White, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Patricia D. White, University of Miami School of Law
Rebecca H. White, University of Georgia, School of Law
David Yellen, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: Letters were also written to Sec. of State Clinton (http://web.wmitchell.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Deans-letter-to-Sec.-Clinton.pdf) and U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda Symington (http://web.wmitchell.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Deans-letter-to-Ambassador-Symington.pdf).
His Excellency James Kimonyo
Ambassador of Rwanda
1714 New Hampshire NW
Washington, DC 20009
Dear Ambassador Kimonyo,
We are deans of American law schools. As legal educators, we believe we have an obligation to nurture in our students the core values of the legal profession. These core values are threatened by the arrest in Rwanda of William Mitchell College of Law Professor Peter Erlinder. We are writing to respectfully request your assistance in ensuring his safety and release.
The U.N. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state that lawyers “shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions” and that “governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.” These principles also provide that “lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.”
As you know, Prof. Erlinder was in Kigali to pursue a legal defense for Madame Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. We believe that he has been arrested, interrogated, and imprisoned unjustly and for simply doing the work of the lawyer: advocating on behalf of his client.
Ambassador Kimonyo, we respectfully urge the government of Rwanda to abide by these principles, to refrain from harassment of lawyers practicing law consistent with their professional obligations, and to release Prof. Erlinder forthwith.
Very truly yours,
(Affiliations are listed for identification only and do not represent institutional endorsement.)
R. Alexander Acosta, Florida International University
William E. Adams, Jr., Western State University College of Law
John B. Attanasio, Dedman School of Law Southern Methodist University
Martin H. Belsky, University of Akron School of Law
Paul Schiff Berman, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.
Douglas Blaze, University of Tennessee College of Law
Jeff Brand, University of San Francisco School of Law
David A. Brennen, University of Kentucky College of Law
Shelley Broderick, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Doris DelTosto Brogan, Villanova University School of Law
Penelope Bryan, Whittier Law School
Judge John L. Carroll, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
James Ming Chen, University of Louisville
Annette E. Clark, Seattle University School of Law
Jay Conison, Valparaiso University School of Law
John Corkery, The John Marshall Law School
George Critchlow, Gonzaga University School of Law
Mary A. Crossley, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Marianne B. Culhane, Creighton Univ. School of Law
Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., University of Wisconsin Law School
Samuel M. Davis, University of Mississippi School of Law
Nora V. Demleitner, Hofstra University School of Law
R. Lawrence Dessem, University of Missouri School of Law
Matthew Diller, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
John M. A. DiPippa, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Allen Easley, University of LaVerne College of Law
JoAnne A. Epps, Temple University Beasley School of Law
John J. Farmer, Jr., Rutgers School of Law | Newark
Daisy H. Floyd, Mercer University School of Law
Alfredo Garcia, St. Thomas University School of Law
Bryant G. Garth, Southwestern Law School
Arthur R. Gaudio, Western New England College School of Law
Victor J. Gold, Loyola Law School
Peter Goplerud, Florida Coastal School of Law
Ken Gormley, Duquesne University School of Law
Stephen M. Griffin, Tulane Law School
Claudio Grossman, American University, Washington College of Law
Donald J. Guter, South Texas College of Law
Jack A. Guttenberg, Capital University Law School
Phoebe A. Haddon, University of Maryland School of Law
Dennis R. Honabach, Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University
Scott W. Howe, Chapman University School of Law
Eric S. Janus, William Mitchell College of Law
Robert H. Jerry, II, Levin College of Law, University of Florida
George R. Johnson, Jr., Elon University School of Law
Bernard V. Keenan, Suffolk University Law School
Robert Klonoff, Lewis & Clark Law School
Don LeDuc, Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Donald M. Lewis, Hamline University School of Law
David A. Logan, Roger Williams University School of Law
Richard A. Matasar, New York Law School
Philip J. McConnaughay, Penn State The Dickinson School of Law
Joyce E. McConnell, West Virginia University College of Law
Thomas M. Mengler, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Veryl Miles, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law
Blake D. Morant, Wake Forest University School of Law
Charles I. Nelson, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law
John O’Brien, New England Law | Boston
Maureen A. O’Rourke, Boston University School of Law
Jeremy Paul, University of Connecticut School of Law
Raymond C. Pierce, North Carolina Central University School of Law
Freddie Pitcher, Jr., Southern University Law Center
Peter Pitegoff, University of Maine School of Law
Lawrence Raful, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Drucilla S. Ramey, Golden Gate University, School of Law
Robert H. Rawson, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Douglas E Ray, University of Toledo College of Law
Richard L. Revesz, New York University School of Law
Jim Rosenblatt, Mississippi College School of Law
Irma Russell, University of Montana School of Law
Lawrence Sager, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Brad Saxton, Quinnipiac University School of Law
Kurt L. Schmoke, Howard University School of Law
Lloyd Semple, University of Detroit Mercy School of law
Michelle S. Simon, Pace Law School
Steven R. Smith, California Western School of Law | San Diego
Rodney A. Smolla, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Rayman L. Solomon, Rutgers University School of Law – Camden
Mathew D. Staver, Liberty University School of Law
Athornia Steele, Nova Southeastern University
Ellen Y. Suni, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Kellye Y. Testy, University of Washington School of Law
William M. Treanor, Fordham Law School
Kevin Washburn, University of New Mexico School of Law
John Valery White, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Patricia D. White, University of Miami School of Law
Rebecca H. White, University of Georgia, School of Law
David Yellen, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: Letters were also written to Sec. of State Clinton (http://web.wmitchell.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Deans-letter-to-Sec.-Clinton.pdf) and U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda Symington (http://web.wmitchell.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Deans-letter-to-Ambassador-Symington.pdf).
Congo rules out international role in Chebeya probe.
Reuters
8 June 2010
By Katrina Manson
Democratic Republic of Congo will not allow international bodies to participate in an investigation into the death of a leading human rights activist, the country's top legal adviser said.
Floribert Chebeya, head of Voice of the Voiceless, a local NGO, was found dead on the outskirts of Kinshasa on June 2, prompting the United Nations to offer assistance and the United States, Canada, Britain, and France to express concern.
"We will not conduct a joint investigation -- this is a sovereign investigation," Attorney General Flory Kabange Numbi told Reuters in an interview.
A group of 55 NGOs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said over the weekend that an independent probe into Chebeya's death was crucial to ensuring the investigation's result is credible.
Congo authorities have arrested several police officers since Chebeya's death, and the country's police chief was suspended to help the investigation "take place smoothly", according to Interior Minister Adolphe Lumanu.
"Suspending the police chief is a step in the right direction, but what is urgently needed is for the DRC government to establish an independent commission of inquiry on what happened and ensure that justice is done," said Anneke Van Woudenbourg of Human Rights Watch.
Kabange Numbi said in the interview that he wanted an autopsy on Chebeya's body he ordered last week to go ahead despite a request from the family for an independent autopsy.
"If there are any objections after the results of the autopsy, the family can ask for a second or third autopsy afterwards," he said.
The Dutch embassy in Congo had offered to send a team of four experts to help with the autopsy. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had also offered the services of the U.N. mission MONUC in a joint probe.
The incident comes as Congo, still suffering from the effects of a 1998-2003 war that killed millions, prepares to celebrate 50 years of independence from Belgian colonial rule. Campaigners have long criticised the country's record on human rights, saying activists are under increasing threat and several fear for their lives.
Police Inspector General John Numbi, with whom Chebeya is believed to have had a meeting on the evening before he was found dead, was suspended during the weekend.
Several other officers, including Colonel Daniel Mukalay of the police special services who was named in a 2008 Human Rights Watch Report for having tortured political prisoners, have also been arrested.
(editing by Richard Valdmanis and Noah Barkin)
8 June 2010
By Katrina Manson
Democratic Republic of Congo will not allow international bodies to participate in an investigation into the death of a leading human rights activist, the country's top legal adviser said.
Floribert Chebeya, head of Voice of the Voiceless, a local NGO, was found dead on the outskirts of Kinshasa on June 2, prompting the United Nations to offer assistance and the United States, Canada, Britain, and France to express concern.
"We will not conduct a joint investigation -- this is a sovereign investigation," Attorney General Flory Kabange Numbi told Reuters in an interview.
A group of 55 NGOs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said over the weekend that an independent probe into Chebeya's death was crucial to ensuring the investigation's result is credible.
Congo authorities have arrested several police officers since Chebeya's death, and the country's police chief was suspended to help the investigation "take place smoothly", according to Interior Minister Adolphe Lumanu.
"Suspending the police chief is a step in the right direction, but what is urgently needed is for the DRC government to establish an independent commission of inquiry on what happened and ensure that justice is done," said Anneke Van Woudenbourg of Human Rights Watch.
Kabange Numbi said in the interview that he wanted an autopsy on Chebeya's body he ordered last week to go ahead despite a request from the family for an independent autopsy.
"If there are any objections after the results of the autopsy, the family can ask for a second or third autopsy afterwards," he said.
The Dutch embassy in Congo had offered to send a team of four experts to help with the autopsy. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had also offered the services of the U.N. mission MONUC in a joint probe.
The incident comes as Congo, still suffering from the effects of a 1998-2003 war that killed millions, prepares to celebrate 50 years of independence from Belgian colonial rule. Campaigners have long criticised the country's record on human rights, saying activists are under increasing threat and several fear for their lives.
Police Inspector General John Numbi, with whom Chebeya is believed to have had a meeting on the evening before he was found dead, was suspended during the weekend.
Several other officers, including Colonel Daniel Mukalay of the police special services who was named in a 2008 Human Rights Watch Report for having tortured political prisoners, have also been arrested.
(editing by Richard Valdmanis and Noah Barkin)
ICTR Silent About Erlinder Arrest, Punishing ICTR Lawyer Withdrawing from Trial Until Situation Clarified.
Today, ICTR defense lawyer Peter Robinson was charged with contempt of court for refusing to proceed with interrogating a witness. He must return on 21 June to answer to the charges. He is liable to a $10,000 fine and/or five years in prison.
He requested to withdraw from the case since he was could not proceed while Peter Erlinder was in prison and because of the fact Mr. Erlinder was arrested in part for statements made at the ICTR in defense of his clients, his professional duty. Mr. Robinson has asked the ICTR clarify this.
Transcripts of 7 and 8 June trial proceedings are available upon request.
He requested to withdraw from the case since he was could not proceed while Peter Erlinder was in prison and because of the fact Mr. Erlinder was arrested in part for statements made at the ICTR in defense of his clients, his professional duty. Mr. Robinson has asked the ICTR clarify this.
Transcripts of 7 and 8 June trial proceedings are available upon request.
Peter Erlinder Denied Bail, his Client Victorie Ingabire Umuhoza Speaks Out.
Editor's Note: Official translated Rwandan court ruling document available upon request.
Afren, Exxon-Mobil, Shell Look to East Africa for Oil.
Bloomberg News
4 June 2010
By By Eduard Gismatullin
June 4 (Bloomberg) -- Afren Plc, a U.K. oil and gas explorer focused on West Africa, will expand in the eastern side of the continent, an area where Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are paying more attention.
Afren this week agreed to buy Black Marlin Energy Holdings Ltd. for about $100 million in new shares to secure 12 licenses in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar and Seychelles with potential resources of about 1.2 billion barrels of oil equivalent, said Chief Executive Officer Osman Shahenshah.
“It will be difficult to do this deal in six months time, there is so much interest in East Africa,” Shahenshah said today in phone interview. “We have entered just in time at a reasonable valuation. Prices will go up quite considerably.” Exxon and Shell “are looking at things there.”
The explorer is the latest arrival to East Africa after BG Group Plc last week bought a stakes in Ophir Energy Plc’s three blocks in Tanzania. Tullow Oil Plc, Dominion Petroleum Ltd., Aminex Plc, Statoil ASA, and Australia’s Beach Energy Ltd. are exploring for oil and gas in the region. In March, Statoil sold a stake in its Tanzanian block to Exxon.
Afren “builds out the Pan African model and provides a tranche of drilling opportunities to grow the company beyond 2012,” Richard Griffith, a London-based analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd., wrote yesterday in a report.
The U.K. company will offer Black Marlin shareholders 0.3647 of its shares for each share they own, it said in a statement June 2. Afren will use about 76.8 million of its new shares to fund the transaction.
‘Moving Quickly’
“By moving quickly we are able to acquire something that is extremely attractive,” Shahenshah said. Black Marlin management team has “been approached for farm-in opportunities from a number of companies.”
Wendel Broere, a spokesman at The Hague-based Shell, couldn’t immediately comment on the company’s exploration interests in East Africa.
“East Africa is interesting. We’ve looked at some opportunities there,” Chariot Oil & Gas Ltd. CEO Paul Welch said June 1. “But East Africa from what we’ve seen is going to be very gas prone. There are very immature exploration areas.”
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in February said it found gas in the Windjammer exploration well drilling in deep water near Mozambique, the first major discovery off Africa’s east coast. It was made about 30 miles (48 kilometers) east of the coastline in the frontier Rovuma Basin.
Potential for Extension
“There is the potential of this play fairway extending around the coast up past Tanzania and to Kenya,” Peter Hitchens, an analyst at Panmure Gordon & Co. in London, said in a report May 14. “It is interesting to note that Anadarko has acquired offshore acreage in Southern Kenya, indicating that the company believes this new play type could extend further up the coast.”
Windjammer field may hold about four trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas reserves, according to Hitchens. The East African nations may develop a local gas-consuming market, which can make other discoveries economically viable, he wrote.
“Clearly there is gas in East Africa” which possibly could be sold to the local market depending on the site of the discoveries, Shahenshan said.
Nigerian Plans
The London-based explorer plans to almost triple oil production to about 60,000 barrels a day by the middle of next year, up from about 21,000 barrels a day now.
“We will be producing a lot of cash and we also are looking at some very serious acquisitions in Nigeria,” Shahenshah said. “There are some opportunities with the majors,” which “could be larger” than the assets Afren agreed to buy last year.
Afren acquired a stake in the OML 115 field, which is located next to its Ebok and Okwok developments, and an interest in the OPL 310 field last year off Nigeria.
Next year, Afren expects to generate at least $600 million in cash. The East African exploration program will require about $95 million in investment through 2012.
“The program in Nigeria is fully on track,” Shahenshah said.
4 June 2010
By By Eduard Gismatullin
June 4 (Bloomberg) -- Afren Plc, a U.K. oil and gas explorer focused on West Africa, will expand in the eastern side of the continent, an area where Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are paying more attention.
Afren this week agreed to buy Black Marlin Energy Holdings Ltd. for about $100 million in new shares to secure 12 licenses in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar and Seychelles with potential resources of about 1.2 billion barrels of oil equivalent, said Chief Executive Officer Osman Shahenshah.
“It will be difficult to do this deal in six months time, there is so much interest in East Africa,” Shahenshah said today in phone interview. “We have entered just in time at a reasonable valuation. Prices will go up quite considerably.” Exxon and Shell “are looking at things there.”
The explorer is the latest arrival to East Africa after BG Group Plc last week bought a stakes in Ophir Energy Plc’s three blocks in Tanzania. Tullow Oil Plc, Dominion Petroleum Ltd., Aminex Plc, Statoil ASA, and Australia’s Beach Energy Ltd. are exploring for oil and gas in the region. In March, Statoil sold a stake in its Tanzanian block to Exxon.
Afren “builds out the Pan African model and provides a tranche of drilling opportunities to grow the company beyond 2012,” Richard Griffith, a London-based analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd., wrote yesterday in a report.
The U.K. company will offer Black Marlin shareholders 0.3647 of its shares for each share they own, it said in a statement June 2. Afren will use about 76.8 million of its new shares to fund the transaction.
‘Moving Quickly’
“By moving quickly we are able to acquire something that is extremely attractive,” Shahenshah said. Black Marlin management team has “been approached for farm-in opportunities from a number of companies.”
Wendel Broere, a spokesman at The Hague-based Shell, couldn’t immediately comment on the company’s exploration interests in East Africa.
“East Africa is interesting. We’ve looked at some opportunities there,” Chariot Oil & Gas Ltd. CEO Paul Welch said June 1. “But East Africa from what we’ve seen is going to be very gas prone. There are very immature exploration areas.”
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in February said it found gas in the Windjammer exploration well drilling in deep water near Mozambique, the first major discovery off Africa’s east coast. It was made about 30 miles (48 kilometers) east of the coastline in the frontier Rovuma Basin.
Potential for Extension
“There is the potential of this play fairway extending around the coast up past Tanzania and to Kenya,” Peter Hitchens, an analyst at Panmure Gordon & Co. in London, said in a report May 14. “It is interesting to note that Anadarko has acquired offshore acreage in Southern Kenya, indicating that the company believes this new play type could extend further up the coast.”
Windjammer field may hold about four trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas reserves, according to Hitchens. The East African nations may develop a local gas-consuming market, which can make other discoveries economically viable, he wrote.
“Clearly there is gas in East Africa” which possibly could be sold to the local market depending on the site of the discoveries, Shahenshan said.
Nigerian Plans
The London-based explorer plans to almost triple oil production to about 60,000 barrels a day by the middle of next year, up from about 21,000 barrels a day now.
“We will be producing a lot of cash and we also are looking at some very serious acquisitions in Nigeria,” Shahenshah said. “There are some opportunities with the majors,” which “could be larger” than the assets Afren agreed to buy last year.
Afren acquired a stake in the OML 115 field, which is located next to its Ebok and Okwok developments, and an interest in the OPL 310 field last year off Nigeria.
Next year, Afren expects to generate at least $600 million in cash. The East African exploration program will require about $95 million in investment through 2012.
“The program in Nigeria is fully on track,” Shahenshah said.
Allegations Ethiopian Ruling Party of PM Zenawi Accused of Using Food as a Political Weapon.
IRIN
7 June 2010
After harvesting just 50kg of grain last year from his tiny plot in an arid corner of Ethiopia's Amhara region, Asmenaw Keflegn knew he would have to ask for help.
But when the 44-year-old member of the opposition All Ethiopia Unity Party asked his village chairman to put him on a list of those eligible for emergency food aid from foreign donors, he was refused. The chairman told him, "Let the party that you belong to give you aid."
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and its allies won 545 out of 547 seats in the parliament in May elections, amid opposition charges - dismissed by the government - that it employed a broad-based campaign of harassment, intimidation and coercion, including the systematic denial of food aid to opposition supporters.
Despite annual economic growth of over 7 percent in the past five years, about 13 million Ethiopians - nearly one-sixth of the population - receive some form of foreign aid.
The ruling party vigorously denied the reports and said the opposition was fabricating such evidence to discredit the elections and undermine the government. The accusations are "outrageous and stupid", Meles told reporters. "There is no such system. There will never be such a system."
"The government at this level of development doesn't need any coercive measures [in order] to be elected," says Bereket Simon, Minister of Communication Affairs. "Regarding governance, regarding social development, the people of Ethiopia know for sure the future of Ethiopia lies with this government and so we have no need to compete in an undemocratic way."
However, a March report from New York-based Human Rights Watch, A Hundred Ways of Putting Pressure, states that government services, including food aid distributions, are "tools used to discourage opposition to government policies, deny the opposition political space, and punish those who do not follow the party line".
Food for votes
In the district of Tembien in northern Ethiopia's Tigray region, Seeye Abreha, a losing candidate from the opposition Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) party of jailed opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa, said the two main donor-funded relief programmes were manipulated by the ruling party before the election.
From 17 May, farmers who were owed three months of relief payments under the Productive Safety Net Program, a western-funded food-for-work scheme, were given one month's payment and told by local government officials they would receive the remainder after the election "provided they let down Seeye and vote for the EPRDF candidate", says Seeye, a former minister of defence under Meles.
"Emergency food aid and Safety Net were very much employed as a tool for influencing the result of the election," he added. "I am not against the distribution of food aid because there are a lot of people who need it very badly. My point is that the food provision should be independent of politics."
Donors say they have no evidence to prove their aid has been used as a campaign tool. The US, which gave Ethiopia US$937 million in aid last year, sent a team to southern Ethiopia accompanied by government officials in December to investigate the allegations. US efforts have found "no evidence that food aid is being denied to supporters of the opposition", wrote Alyson Grunder, a spokeswoman for the US embassy, in an e-mail to IRIN.
A team led by the World Bank analyzed data on aid distortion from the PSNP and found no widespread pattern of aid misuse, said Kenichi Ohashi, the World Bank's country director for Ethiopia.
Paying the price
Noting that Ethiopia is a major ally in western counter-terrorism efforts in Somalia and one of the largest aid recipients on the African continent, rights groups and opposition leaders suggest such investigations have been half-hearted.
"When all of their development programmes are being administered by the Ethiopian government, there is a structural incentive to underplay the human rights situation and to believe what the Ethiopian government tells them," says Ben Rawlence, an HRW researcher. "This becomes a particularly difficult and embarrassing contradiction when faced with a more than 90 percent election victory."
"The US can launch an investigation and it may work if it's done independently, but if it goes around accompanied by government officials it's not going to find out anything," says Hailu Araaya, a leader of the UDJ opposition party.
The Bank's Ohashi says donor efforts to investigate the issue have not been designed to uncover such problems. "These mechanisms are essentially not able to catch the kinds of things Human Rights Watch alleged to be happening," he said. "Unless you go and do some undercover investigation you're not likely to find it."
In December, the government detained seven farmers from northern Ethiopia who travelled to the capital Addis Ababa to testify about aid politicization to foreign donors and human rights groups.
Rawlence was expelled from the country, and a foreign journalist who later travelled to northern Ethiopia to meet the farmers was detained for two days and threatened with expulsion, according to HRW.
The government has criticized HRW for what it views as the organization's flawed methodology in reporting about human rights violations in Ethiopia.
"Basically it is the same old junk," says Bereket. "It has nothing to do with human rights or any discrimination or intimidation whatsoever. It's a report that intends to punish the image of Ethiopia and try if possible to derail the peaceful and democratic election process."
Protests
But opposition supporters in the countryside say the denial of food aid has proven to be a potent political weapon in a famine-prone country. Yimer Ahmed, 45, an opposition candidate for the regional council in the central Amhara region, said his wife recently divorced him because his membership of an opposition party had kept their family from receiving US food aid.
"Because life is hard, people are saying that being a member of the opposition will invite hunger," he says. "This aid is coming through the government and without this aid they will starve, so they don't want to have any problems with the government."
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
7 June 2010
After harvesting just 50kg of grain last year from his tiny plot in an arid corner of Ethiopia's Amhara region, Asmenaw Keflegn knew he would have to ask for help.
But when the 44-year-old member of the opposition All Ethiopia Unity Party asked his village chairman to put him on a list of those eligible for emergency food aid from foreign donors, he was refused. The chairman told him, "Let the party that you belong to give you aid."
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and its allies won 545 out of 547 seats in the parliament in May elections, amid opposition charges - dismissed by the government - that it employed a broad-based campaign of harassment, intimidation and coercion, including the systematic denial of food aid to opposition supporters.
Despite annual economic growth of over 7 percent in the past five years, about 13 million Ethiopians - nearly one-sixth of the population - receive some form of foreign aid.
The ruling party vigorously denied the reports and said the opposition was fabricating such evidence to discredit the elections and undermine the government. The accusations are "outrageous and stupid", Meles told reporters. "There is no such system. There will never be such a system."
"The government at this level of development doesn't need any coercive measures [in order] to be elected," says Bereket Simon, Minister of Communication Affairs. "Regarding governance, regarding social development, the people of Ethiopia know for sure the future of Ethiopia lies with this government and so we have no need to compete in an undemocratic way."
However, a March report from New York-based Human Rights Watch, A Hundred Ways of Putting Pressure, states that government services, including food aid distributions, are "tools used to discourage opposition to government policies, deny the opposition political space, and punish those who do not follow the party line".
Food for votes
In the district of Tembien in northern Ethiopia's Tigray region, Seeye Abreha, a losing candidate from the opposition Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) party of jailed opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa, said the two main donor-funded relief programmes were manipulated by the ruling party before the election.
From 17 May, farmers who were owed three months of relief payments under the Productive Safety Net Program, a western-funded food-for-work scheme, were given one month's payment and told by local government officials they would receive the remainder after the election "provided they let down Seeye and vote for the EPRDF candidate", says Seeye, a former minister of defence under Meles.
"Emergency food aid and Safety Net were very much employed as a tool for influencing the result of the election," he added. "I am not against the distribution of food aid because there are a lot of people who need it very badly. My point is that the food provision should be independent of politics."
Donors say they have no evidence to prove their aid has been used as a campaign tool. The US, which gave Ethiopia US$937 million in aid last year, sent a team to southern Ethiopia accompanied by government officials in December to investigate the allegations. US efforts have found "no evidence that food aid is being denied to supporters of the opposition", wrote Alyson Grunder, a spokeswoman for the US embassy, in an e-mail to IRIN.
A team led by the World Bank analyzed data on aid distortion from the PSNP and found no widespread pattern of aid misuse, said Kenichi Ohashi, the World Bank's country director for Ethiopia.
Paying the price
Noting that Ethiopia is a major ally in western counter-terrorism efforts in Somalia and one of the largest aid recipients on the African continent, rights groups and opposition leaders suggest such investigations have been half-hearted.
"When all of their development programmes are being administered by the Ethiopian government, there is a structural incentive to underplay the human rights situation and to believe what the Ethiopian government tells them," says Ben Rawlence, an HRW researcher. "This becomes a particularly difficult and embarrassing contradiction when faced with a more than 90 percent election victory."
"The US can launch an investigation and it may work if it's done independently, but if it goes around accompanied by government officials it's not going to find out anything," says Hailu Araaya, a leader of the UDJ opposition party.
The Bank's Ohashi says donor efforts to investigate the issue have not been designed to uncover such problems. "These mechanisms are essentially not able to catch the kinds of things Human Rights Watch alleged to be happening," he said. "Unless you go and do some undercover investigation you're not likely to find it."
In December, the government detained seven farmers from northern Ethiopia who travelled to the capital Addis Ababa to testify about aid politicization to foreign donors and human rights groups.
Rawlence was expelled from the country, and a foreign journalist who later travelled to northern Ethiopia to meet the farmers was detained for two days and threatened with expulsion, according to HRW.
The government has criticized HRW for what it views as the organization's flawed methodology in reporting about human rights violations in Ethiopia.
"Basically it is the same old junk," says Bereket. "It has nothing to do with human rights or any discrimination or intimidation whatsoever. It's a report that intends to punish the image of Ethiopia and try if possible to derail the peaceful and democratic election process."
Protests
But opposition supporters in the countryside say the denial of food aid has proven to be a potent political weapon in a famine-prone country. Yimer Ahmed, 45, an opposition candidate for the regional council in the central Amhara region, said his wife recently divorced him because his membership of an opposition party had kept their family from receiving US food aid.
"Because life is hard, people are saying that being a member of the opposition will invite hunger," he says. "This aid is coming through the government and without this aid they will starve, so they don't want to have any problems with the government."
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Vice President Biden Arrives in Kenya for Three-Day Visit.
The East African
Kevin Kelly and Walter Menya
7 June 2010
US Vice-President Joe Biden's three-day visit in Kenya is expected to cost American taxpayers at least US $ 2 million or Sh 160 million according to estimates of what his entourage entails.
The Sh 160 million covers costs for security, meals, lodging and other expenses.
The Vice President arrived in Nairobi, after 8pm, on a day that saw security heightened in the capital city.
He is expected to hold talks with President Mwai Kibaki, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Speaker Kenneth Marende and members of the Parliamentary Caucus on Reforms.
Biden typically travels on a Boeing 757/C-32A aircraft designated as Air Force Two. (The president flies in Air Force One.)
Estimated operating costs for Air Force One are about $60,000 an hour Sh 4.8 million. We don't have specific figure for Air Force Two, but it's probably roughly similar. That means it would cost more than $1 million Sh 80 million just to transport Mr Biden and his retinue roundtrip Washington-Nairobi if he were flying only.
However, before coming to Kenya, Mr Biden had a stopover in Egypt and he is scheduled to go to South Africa from Kenya.
Air Force Two is as well outfitted as Air Force One. Facilities include a full stateroom as well as areas for briefings and dining. But Air Force Two is not exclusively the vice president's plane; it's shared, as needed, with members of the president's cabinet.
At least one cargo plane accompanies the president when he travels, so that may well be the case for the vice president as well.
Such a plane is expected to transport special equipment such as an armoured limousine and communications gear.
Security for Biden - and for his wife, Jill - is the responsibility of the US Secret Service, which doesn't reveal details about how it protects the vice president and president.
The Secret Service's code name for Biden is Celtic. For Obama, it's Renegade. For some reason, the Secret Service allows these code names to be made public.
In Washington, Biden has a fulltime staff of about 80, including a national security advisor and foreign policy specialists.
American taxpayers also spend more than Sh646 million shillings to protect Vice-President Joe Biden.
Biden, is the second most guarded American after President Barack Obama.
According to Secret Service director Mark Sullivan, that was the cost of the cost of protecting former Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Given the threat levels that Obama, the first African-American US president, brings to the job the cost of security could be much higher.
Biden's security detail, especially outside America was strengthened following an incident during the opening ceremony in China when a mentally unstable Canadian man fooled the security service and approached him. The 48-year-old Canadian, used a fake accreditation card and went through several guard posts. He managed to come close to Biden at a distance of about 12 rows.
The security agency provides the Vice President transportation, advance work and other security as well as his family.
Wherever he goes, Bidden is said to cause major traffic jams.
And in Nairobi, a tight security cordon was yesterday thrown around the city as he arrived for a two day visit.
Intercontinental Hotel, where the Vice President will stay remained a no-go zone, surrounded by US embassy vehicles in tinted windows.
City Hall Way and Kaunda street have been closed to traffic. A tanker was parked right in the middle of City Hall Way near the intersection with Parliament Road. The same embassy vehicles were used to block Kaunda Street of traffic coming from town.
Around the hotel, the General Service Unit personnel and regular police were stationed strategically and also helped in directing traffic.
At the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, the parking lot near the VIP lounge was cleared Sunday. Several black-suited men stood guard in the entire place. Many more were deployed inside and around the airport.
Biden is expected to deliver President Barack Obama's message of support for constitution review process and discuss issues of foreign investment, aid, and good governance reforms.
He will also discuss regional security issues, especially the situations in Sudan and Somalia.
"Joe Biden, his presence as my top emissary is the same one that I'm expressing today: We want Kenya to succeed," President Obama said in a June 1 interview for a Kenyan audience with state broadcaster Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. "Regardless of what people think about this draft, whether the vote Yes or vote No - I just want to make sure that they participate in it. And that will be Joe Biden's message as well," the president added.
The security arrangements have however come at a cost to ordinary Nairobi motorists who complained bitterly yesterday.
Japheth Kamau, a motorist told the East African that he had been blocked from the hotel.
"I pleaded with the security men to even allow me in on foot but they could not budge. This is Kenya, not America and we should be allowed to enjoy our freedom," he said.
U.S. Vice President Visits Kenya
ANALYSIS — East Africa: U.S. Vice-President's Visit Underlines Strategic Interest
NEWS — Kenya: What Govt Wants from U.S. Vice-President
ANALYSIS — Kenya: What Will Country Get Out of Biden's Visit?
NEWS — Kenya: U.S. Vice-President Biden Arrives in Nairobi
NEWS — Kenya: Obama Speaks on Hopes for Country
For the next two days, Nairobi has to be accustomed to dozens of Secret Service agents wearing dark suits and earpieces, leading bomb-sniffing dogs through event venues and sweeping all equipment brought by journalists.
The advance security detail has been in town combing venues the VP will visit and the hotel he will stay from the time he arrives and the time he departs.
The entire hotel has been taken up by Biden's party who are paying for all the rooms, the East African understands. The hotel management refused to comment on the matter insisting they could not divulge information about their clients to the public.
Security for President Obama, the VP and all top administration officials has been intensified due to threats from home-bred extremists, international terrorists, and the Bush shoe-throwing incident in Iraq in 2008.
Additional reporting by Jeff Otieno
Kevin Kelly and Walter Menya
7 June 2010
US Vice-President Joe Biden's three-day visit in Kenya is expected to cost American taxpayers at least US $ 2 million or Sh 160 million according to estimates of what his entourage entails.
The Sh 160 million covers costs for security, meals, lodging and other expenses.
The Vice President arrived in Nairobi, after 8pm, on a day that saw security heightened in the capital city.
He is expected to hold talks with President Mwai Kibaki, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Speaker Kenneth Marende and members of the Parliamentary Caucus on Reforms.
Biden typically travels on a Boeing 757/C-32A aircraft designated as Air Force Two. (The president flies in Air Force One.)
Estimated operating costs for Air Force One are about $60,000 an hour Sh 4.8 million. We don't have specific figure for Air Force Two, but it's probably roughly similar. That means it would cost more than $1 million Sh 80 million just to transport Mr Biden and his retinue roundtrip Washington-Nairobi if he were flying only.
However, before coming to Kenya, Mr Biden had a stopover in Egypt and he is scheduled to go to South Africa from Kenya.
Air Force Two is as well outfitted as Air Force One. Facilities include a full stateroom as well as areas for briefings and dining. But Air Force Two is not exclusively the vice president's plane; it's shared, as needed, with members of the president's cabinet.
At least one cargo plane accompanies the president when he travels, so that may well be the case for the vice president as well.
Such a plane is expected to transport special equipment such as an armoured limousine and communications gear.
Security for Biden - and for his wife, Jill - is the responsibility of the US Secret Service, which doesn't reveal details about how it protects the vice president and president.
The Secret Service's code name for Biden is Celtic. For Obama, it's Renegade. For some reason, the Secret Service allows these code names to be made public.
In Washington, Biden has a fulltime staff of about 80, including a national security advisor and foreign policy specialists.
American taxpayers also spend more than Sh646 million shillings to protect Vice-President Joe Biden.
Biden, is the second most guarded American after President Barack Obama.
According to Secret Service director Mark Sullivan, that was the cost of the cost of protecting former Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Given the threat levels that Obama, the first African-American US president, brings to the job the cost of security could be much higher.
Biden's security detail, especially outside America was strengthened following an incident during the opening ceremony in China when a mentally unstable Canadian man fooled the security service and approached him. The 48-year-old Canadian, used a fake accreditation card and went through several guard posts. He managed to come close to Biden at a distance of about 12 rows.
The security agency provides the Vice President transportation, advance work and other security as well as his family.
Wherever he goes, Bidden is said to cause major traffic jams.
And in Nairobi, a tight security cordon was yesterday thrown around the city as he arrived for a two day visit.
Intercontinental Hotel, where the Vice President will stay remained a no-go zone, surrounded by US embassy vehicles in tinted windows.
City Hall Way and Kaunda street have been closed to traffic. A tanker was parked right in the middle of City Hall Way near the intersection with Parliament Road. The same embassy vehicles were used to block Kaunda Street of traffic coming from town.
Around the hotel, the General Service Unit personnel and regular police were stationed strategically and also helped in directing traffic.
At the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, the parking lot near the VIP lounge was cleared Sunday. Several black-suited men stood guard in the entire place. Many more were deployed inside and around the airport.
Biden is expected to deliver President Barack Obama's message of support for constitution review process and discuss issues of foreign investment, aid, and good governance reforms.
He will also discuss regional security issues, especially the situations in Sudan and Somalia.
"Joe Biden, his presence as my top emissary is the same one that I'm expressing today: We want Kenya to succeed," President Obama said in a June 1 interview for a Kenyan audience with state broadcaster Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. "Regardless of what people think about this draft, whether the vote Yes or vote No - I just want to make sure that they participate in it. And that will be Joe Biden's message as well," the president added.
The security arrangements have however come at a cost to ordinary Nairobi motorists who complained bitterly yesterday.
Japheth Kamau, a motorist told the East African that he had been blocked from the hotel.
"I pleaded with the security men to even allow me in on foot but they could not budge. This is Kenya, not America and we should be allowed to enjoy our freedom," he said.
U.S. Vice President Visits Kenya
ANALYSIS — East Africa: U.S. Vice-President's Visit Underlines Strategic Interest
NEWS — Kenya: What Govt Wants from U.S. Vice-President
ANALYSIS — Kenya: What Will Country Get Out of Biden's Visit?
NEWS — Kenya: U.S. Vice-President Biden Arrives in Nairobi
NEWS — Kenya: Obama Speaks on Hopes for Country
For the next two days, Nairobi has to be accustomed to dozens of Secret Service agents wearing dark suits and earpieces, leading bomb-sniffing dogs through event venues and sweeping all equipment brought by journalists.
The advance security detail has been in town combing venues the VP will visit and the hotel he will stay from the time he arrives and the time he departs.
The entire hotel has been taken up by Biden's party who are paying for all the rooms, the East African understands. The hotel management refused to comment on the matter insisting they could not divulge information about their clients to the public.
Security for President Obama, the VP and all top administration officials has been intensified due to threats from home-bred extremists, international terrorists, and the Bush shoe-throwing incident in Iraq in 2008.
Additional reporting by Jeff Otieno
STATEMENT AND APPEAL FROM DEFENCE LAWYERS CURRENTLY PRACTISING AT THE ICTR.
We, the undersigned, members of Defence teams of persons accused before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR):
- deeply troubled by the announcement of Professor Peter Erlinder’s arrest and his continued detention in Kigali, which occurred in the context of his activities guaranteeing the rights of the Defence;
- concerned by information received regarding the accusations being laid against him and regarding the manner in which the prosecution case is being created in an attempt to support these allegations;
- worried for Professor Erlinder’s physical and moral integrity, given the information coming from the Rwandan judicial authorities themselves;
- concerned by the statements made on 2 June 2010 on behalf of the Tribunal, which will only be interpreted by the Rwandan judicial authorities as an encouragement to create a case against Professor Erlinder which excludes any allegations that are directly connected with the Tribunal;
- convinced that, whatever the pretexts thus far invoked or added by the Rwandan authorities in its attempt to justify the attack on, and circumvention of, the Tribunal’s guarantees of immunity owed to him, Peter Erlinder’s arrest is directly and indivisibly linked to the exercise of his assignment and mandate before the ICTR and with his involvement in an active and uncompromising Defence designed to arrive at the truth;
- recalling our ever-increasing concerns and our prior warnings with regard to the criminalization of the safeguarding of the rights of the Defence whereby anyone who is involved in the defence of an accused person - be they counsel, investigator, assistant or Defence witness - runs the same risks and is exposed to the same threats of being criminally categorized as a “negationist” as defined in Rwandan legislation;
- noting that Peter Erlinder’s continued detention, or any other form of restrictions on his freedom of movement, and his continued prosecution seriously compromises our missions by undermining our independence and by preventing the carrying out of our duties, up to and including the calling of witnesses without any fear of their suffering reprisals, hereby request that the President and the Registrar of the ICTR, the General Secretary of the United Nations Security Counsel, the President of the United Nations General Assembly, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, each exercise their respective powers to obtain from the Rwandan authorities:
- the immediate release of Peter Erlinder, the lifting of all restrictions on his freedom of movement, and the withdrawal of all charges against him, since they are indivisibly linked to his carrying out of his duties for the Defence;
- a commitment to guarantee the immunity of every person engaged in seeking the truth before any international or domestic jurisdiction;
- compliance with their obligation to cooperate with the ICTR, which necessarily involves respect for the rights of the Defence, essential in the administration of justice and in guaranteeing the right to a fair trial.
Noting the impossibility of continuing with our missions so long as Peter Erlinder – as well as the rights of the Defence – are held hostage in such a way, and noting that this situation is inconsistent with the right of all accused persons to a fair trial, inherent in which is the right to a free and independent Defence;
Aware of the dangers which immediately and directly threaten most of our number, and which are evidenced by the fate of Peter Erlinder;
We hereby resolve to postpone all activities, other than those which strictly conserve the interests of our mandates, until such time as the minimum conditions for the normal exercise of our missions have been restored by the removal of threats to them, and by a solemn proclamation of the inalienable and inviolable rights of the Defence.
We call on our professional bodies, on international human rights organizations, on states, on international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and on the public opinion of the world, to engage urgently and on a large scale with the Rwandan authorities in support of these demands dictated by universally recognised principles.
45 signatories (on 2010-06-17):
Mes Bergevin, Black, Boule, Bwo'Onamwa, Cantier, Conde, Constant, Courcelle-Labrousse, Diabira Boubou, Diabira Maroufa, Diagne, Dimitri, Doumbia, Edwards, Gaden, Guisse, Herbert, Hinds, Hounkpatin, Jacobs, Le Fraper du Hellen, Lurquin, Lyons, Marcil, Momo, Mwaikusa, Nekuie, Nimy, Normand Marquis, Ogetto, Pacere, Perras, Philpot, Poulain, Poupart, Segatwa, Sindayigaya, Taku, Turner, Vercken, Weyl, with support from Mes Altit, Flamme, Jolles, Tremblay
- deeply troubled by the announcement of Professor Peter Erlinder’s arrest and his continued detention in Kigali, which occurred in the context of his activities guaranteeing the rights of the Defence;
- concerned by information received regarding the accusations being laid against him and regarding the manner in which the prosecution case is being created in an attempt to support these allegations;
- worried for Professor Erlinder’s physical and moral integrity, given the information coming from the Rwandan judicial authorities themselves;
- concerned by the statements made on 2 June 2010 on behalf of the Tribunal, which will only be interpreted by the Rwandan judicial authorities as an encouragement to create a case against Professor Erlinder which excludes any allegations that are directly connected with the Tribunal;
- convinced that, whatever the pretexts thus far invoked or added by the Rwandan authorities in its attempt to justify the attack on, and circumvention of, the Tribunal’s guarantees of immunity owed to him, Peter Erlinder’s arrest is directly and indivisibly linked to the exercise of his assignment and mandate before the ICTR and with his involvement in an active and uncompromising Defence designed to arrive at the truth;
- recalling our ever-increasing concerns and our prior warnings with regard to the criminalization of the safeguarding of the rights of the Defence whereby anyone who is involved in the defence of an accused person - be they counsel, investigator, assistant or Defence witness - runs the same risks and is exposed to the same threats of being criminally categorized as a “negationist” as defined in Rwandan legislation;
- noting that Peter Erlinder’s continued detention, or any other form of restrictions on his freedom of movement, and his continued prosecution seriously compromises our missions by undermining our independence and by preventing the carrying out of our duties, up to and including the calling of witnesses without any fear of their suffering reprisals, hereby request that the President and the Registrar of the ICTR, the General Secretary of the United Nations Security Counsel, the President of the United Nations General Assembly, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, each exercise their respective powers to obtain from the Rwandan authorities:
- the immediate release of Peter Erlinder, the lifting of all restrictions on his freedom of movement, and the withdrawal of all charges against him, since they are indivisibly linked to his carrying out of his duties for the Defence;
- a commitment to guarantee the immunity of every person engaged in seeking the truth before any international or domestic jurisdiction;
- compliance with their obligation to cooperate with the ICTR, which necessarily involves respect for the rights of the Defence, essential in the administration of justice and in guaranteeing the right to a fair trial.
Noting the impossibility of continuing with our missions so long as Peter Erlinder – as well as the rights of the Defence – are held hostage in such a way, and noting that this situation is inconsistent with the right of all accused persons to a fair trial, inherent in which is the right to a free and independent Defence;
Aware of the dangers which immediately and directly threaten most of our number, and which are evidenced by the fate of Peter Erlinder;
We hereby resolve to postpone all activities, other than those which strictly conserve the interests of our mandates, until such time as the minimum conditions for the normal exercise of our missions have been restored by the removal of threats to them, and by a solemn proclamation of the inalienable and inviolable rights of the Defence.
We call on our professional bodies, on international human rights organizations, on states, on international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and on the public opinion of the world, to engage urgently and on a large scale with the Rwandan authorities in support of these demands dictated by universally recognised principles.
45 signatories (on 2010-06-17):
Mes Bergevin, Black, Boule, Bwo'Onamwa, Cantier, Conde, Constant, Courcelle-Labrousse, Diabira Boubou, Diabira Maroufa, Diagne, Dimitri, Doumbia, Edwards, Gaden, Guisse, Herbert, Hinds, Hounkpatin, Jacobs, Le Fraper du Hellen, Lurquin, Lyons, Marcil, Momo, Mwaikusa, Nekuie, Nimy, Normand Marquis, Ogetto, Pacere, Perras, Philpot, Poulain, Poupart, Segatwa, Sindayigaya, Taku, Turner, Vercken, Weyl, with support from Mes Altit, Flamme, Jolles, Tremblay
Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Experiments and Research on Detainees to Design Torture Techniques and Create Legal Cover.
Physicians for Human Rights
7 June 2010
http://phrtorturepapers.org
In the name of US national security, a number of morally questionable and illegal activities were carried out in the years following September 11, 2001. The use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in interrogations of detainees in US custody has been well-documented by Physicians for Human Rights and others. The role of health professionals in designing and participating in illegal interrogations has also been investigated and publicly revealed. This current report addresses another morally troubling yet unreported aspect of the role of health professionals in the “enhanced interrogation” program. Our research and analysis demonstrates that the program also involved doctors and other health professionals in conducting unethical research using detainees as human subjects.
The use of human beings as research subjects has a long and disturbing history filled with sometimes misguided and sometimes willfully unethical experimentation. In US history there are well-known cases: the horrors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment from 1932 to 1972 in which African American men in Alabama were left untreated so they could be studied even after it was known the disease could be treated with penicillin; the Willowbrook case, involving mentally disabled children in New York intentionally infected with viral hepatitis from the 1950s to 1970s; and the extensive dermatological research on prisoners at Holmesburg State Prison in Pennsylvania from 1951 to 1974.
Perhaps the most well-known cases of human subject research, though, are the chilling experiments conducted by Nazi doctors on concentration camp prisoners during World War II. The trial of the doctors accused of this experimentation gave rise to a regime of protections for human subjects known as the Nuremberg code. That code and other guidelines which followed it set clear standards for informed consent of participants in research, an absence of coercion and a requirement for rigorous scientific procedures. Through their willing participation in monitoring and analyzing “enhanced interrogations,” US medical personnel have in recent years violated these vital and long-standing ethical standards.
The essence of the extensive ethical and legal protections for human subjects is that the subjects, especially vulnerable populations such as prisoners, be treated with the dignity befitting a human being and not simply as an experimental guinea pig. The Nuremberg code and other guidance also call on the medical professional to treat persons with their best interests in mind and not to cause them pain in the service of a research goal. Doctors are required to use treatments that are expected to be effective and not to engage in speculative medicine at the expense of a human research subject.
The use of doctors to analyze the impact and effectiveness of various interrogation techniques puts them in the service of national security objectives and not in the service of therapeutic goals. The result has been a co-opting of health professionals by the national security apparatus and a violation of the highest medical admonition to “do no harm.” The misuse of scientific expertise for expedient and exploratory goals leads to a corrosion of the high standards of the profession.
This report details the documented activities of a number of as yet unidentified health professionals who engaged in a regime of human subject experimentation. Those who participated in these actions must be investigated and appropriately disciplined. But their actions not only reflect on themselves as individuals, they are a potential stain on the whole medical profession. The high esteem in which doctors are held is a partly a product of the public’s perception that the medical profession is vigilant about holding its members to the highest standards. Until the questions raised in this paper are answered, and those responsible are held accountable, the medical profession as a whole will be at risk of forfeiting some of the regard of their fellow citizens.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration initiated new human intelligence collection programs. To that end, it detained and questioned an unknown number of people suspected of having links to terrorist organizations. As part of these programs, the Bush administration redefined acts, such as waterboarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, stress positions and prolonged isolation, that had previously been recognized as illegal, to be “safe, legal and effective” “enhanced” interrogation techniques (EITs).
Bush administration lawyers at the Department of Justice’s (DoJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) accomplished this redefinition by establishing legal thresholds for torture, which required medical monitoring of every application of “enhanced” interrogation. Medical personnel were ostensibly responsible for ensuring that the legal threshold for “severe physical and mental pain” was not crossed by interrogators, but their presence and complicity in intentionally harmful interrogation practices were not only apparently intended to enable the routine practice of torture, but also to serve as a potential legal defense against criminal liability for torture.
Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides evidence indicating that the Bush administration, in the period after Sept. 11, conducted human research and experimentation on prisoners in US custody as part of this monitoring role. Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected and analyzed the results of those interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to subsequent interrogations. Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners, which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law. These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The knowledge obtained through this process appears to have been motivated by a need to justify and to shape future interrogation policy and procedure, as well as to justify and to shape the legal environment in which the interrogation program operated.
PHR analyzes three instances of apparent illegal and unethical human subject research for this report:
Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical information that was used to design, develop, and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures;
Information on the effects of simultaneous versus sequential application of the interrogation techniques on detainees was collected and used to establish the policy for using tactics in combination. These data were gathered through an assessment of the presumed “susceptibility” of the subjects to severe pain;
Information collected by health professionals on the effects of sleep deprivation on detainees was used to establish the “enhanced” interrogation program’s (EIP) sleep deprivation policy.
The human subject research apparently served several purposes. It increased information on the physical and psychological impact of the CIA’s application of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques, which previously had been limited mostly to data from experiments using US military volunteers under very limited, simulated conditions of torture. It served to calibrate the level of pain experienced by detainees during interrogation, ostensibly to keep it from crossing the administration’s legal threshold of what it claimed constituted torture. It also served as an attempt to provide a basis for a legal defense against possible torture charges against those who carried out the interrogations, since medical monitoring would demonstrate, according to the Office of Legal Counsel memos, a lack of intent to cause harm to the subjects of interrogations.
Yet the Bush administration’s legal framework to protect CIA interrogators from violating US statutory and treaty obligations prohibiting torture effectively contravened well-established legal and ethical codes, that, had they been enforced, should have protected prisoners against human experimentation, and should have prevented the “enhanced” interrogation program from being initiated in the first place. There is no evidence that the Office of Legal Counsel ever assessed the lawfulness of the medical monitoring of torture, as it did with the use of the “enhanced” techniques themselves.
The use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in interrogations of detainees in US custody has been well-documented by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and others. The role of health professionals in designing, monitoring and participating in torture also has been investigated and publicly documented. This current report provides evidence that in addition to medical complicity in torture, health professionals participated in research and experimentation on detainees in US custody.
The use of human beings as research subjects has a long and disturbing history filled with misguided and often willfully unethical experimentation. Ethical codes and federal regulations have been established to protect human subjects from harm and include clear standards for informed consent of participants in research, an absence of coercion, and a requirement for rigorous scientific procedures. The essence of the ethical and legal protections for human subjects is that the subjects, especially vulnerable populations such as prisoners, must be treated with the dignity befitting human beings and not simply as experimental guinea pigs.
The use of health professionals to monitor intentionally harmful interrogation techniques places them in the service of national security objectives which are in conflict with the interests of those who they are monitoring. The result has been a co-opting of health professionals by the national security apparatus and a violation of the highest medical admonition to “do no harm.” Until the questions examined in this paper are answered and, if ethical violations or crimes were committed, those responsible are held accountable, the misuse of medical and scientific expertise for expedient and non-therapeutic goals jeopardizes the ethical integrity of the profession, and the public trust in the healing professions risks being seriously compromised.
7 June 2010
http://phrtorturepapers.org
In the name of US national security, a number of morally questionable and illegal activities were carried out in the years following September 11, 2001. The use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in interrogations of detainees in US custody has been well-documented by Physicians for Human Rights and others. The role of health professionals in designing and participating in illegal interrogations has also been investigated and publicly revealed. This current report addresses another morally troubling yet unreported aspect of the role of health professionals in the “enhanced interrogation” program. Our research and analysis demonstrates that the program also involved doctors and other health professionals in conducting unethical research using detainees as human subjects.
The use of human beings as research subjects has a long and disturbing history filled with sometimes misguided and sometimes willfully unethical experimentation. In US history there are well-known cases: the horrors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment from 1932 to 1972 in which African American men in Alabama were left untreated so they could be studied even after it was known the disease could be treated with penicillin; the Willowbrook case, involving mentally disabled children in New York intentionally infected with viral hepatitis from the 1950s to 1970s; and the extensive dermatological research on prisoners at Holmesburg State Prison in Pennsylvania from 1951 to 1974.
Perhaps the most well-known cases of human subject research, though, are the chilling experiments conducted by Nazi doctors on concentration camp prisoners during World War II. The trial of the doctors accused of this experimentation gave rise to a regime of protections for human subjects known as the Nuremberg code. That code and other guidelines which followed it set clear standards for informed consent of participants in research, an absence of coercion and a requirement for rigorous scientific procedures. Through their willing participation in monitoring and analyzing “enhanced interrogations,” US medical personnel have in recent years violated these vital and long-standing ethical standards.
The essence of the extensive ethical and legal protections for human subjects is that the subjects, especially vulnerable populations such as prisoners, be treated with the dignity befitting a human being and not simply as an experimental guinea pig. The Nuremberg code and other guidance also call on the medical professional to treat persons with their best interests in mind and not to cause them pain in the service of a research goal. Doctors are required to use treatments that are expected to be effective and not to engage in speculative medicine at the expense of a human research subject.
The use of doctors to analyze the impact and effectiveness of various interrogation techniques puts them in the service of national security objectives and not in the service of therapeutic goals. The result has been a co-opting of health professionals by the national security apparatus and a violation of the highest medical admonition to “do no harm.” The misuse of scientific expertise for expedient and exploratory goals leads to a corrosion of the high standards of the profession.
This report details the documented activities of a number of as yet unidentified health professionals who engaged in a regime of human subject experimentation. Those who participated in these actions must be investigated and appropriately disciplined. But their actions not only reflect on themselves as individuals, they are a potential stain on the whole medical profession. The high esteem in which doctors are held is a partly a product of the public’s perception that the medical profession is vigilant about holding its members to the highest standards. Until the questions raised in this paper are answered, and those responsible are held accountable, the medical profession as a whole will be at risk of forfeiting some of the regard of their fellow citizens.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration initiated new human intelligence collection programs. To that end, it detained and questioned an unknown number of people suspected of having links to terrorist organizations. As part of these programs, the Bush administration redefined acts, such as waterboarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, stress positions and prolonged isolation, that had previously been recognized as illegal, to be “safe, legal and effective” “enhanced” interrogation techniques (EITs).
Bush administration lawyers at the Department of Justice’s (DoJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) accomplished this redefinition by establishing legal thresholds for torture, which required medical monitoring of every application of “enhanced” interrogation. Medical personnel were ostensibly responsible for ensuring that the legal threshold for “severe physical and mental pain” was not crossed by interrogators, but their presence and complicity in intentionally harmful interrogation practices were not only apparently intended to enable the routine practice of torture, but also to serve as a potential legal defense against criminal liability for torture.
Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides evidence indicating that the Bush administration, in the period after Sept. 11, conducted human research and experimentation on prisoners in US custody as part of this monitoring role. Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected and analyzed the results of those interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to subsequent interrogations. Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners, which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law. These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The knowledge obtained through this process appears to have been motivated by a need to justify and to shape future interrogation policy and procedure, as well as to justify and to shape the legal environment in which the interrogation program operated.
PHR analyzes three instances of apparent illegal and unethical human subject research for this report:
Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical information that was used to design, develop, and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures;
Information on the effects of simultaneous versus sequential application of the interrogation techniques on detainees was collected and used to establish the policy for using tactics in combination. These data were gathered through an assessment of the presumed “susceptibility” of the subjects to severe pain;
Information collected by health professionals on the effects of sleep deprivation on detainees was used to establish the “enhanced” interrogation program’s (EIP) sleep deprivation policy.
The human subject research apparently served several purposes. It increased information on the physical and psychological impact of the CIA’s application of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques, which previously had been limited mostly to data from experiments using US military volunteers under very limited, simulated conditions of torture. It served to calibrate the level of pain experienced by detainees during interrogation, ostensibly to keep it from crossing the administration’s legal threshold of what it claimed constituted torture. It also served as an attempt to provide a basis for a legal defense against possible torture charges against those who carried out the interrogations, since medical monitoring would demonstrate, according to the Office of Legal Counsel memos, a lack of intent to cause harm to the subjects of interrogations.
Yet the Bush administration’s legal framework to protect CIA interrogators from violating US statutory and treaty obligations prohibiting torture effectively contravened well-established legal and ethical codes, that, had they been enforced, should have protected prisoners against human experimentation, and should have prevented the “enhanced” interrogation program from being initiated in the first place. There is no evidence that the Office of Legal Counsel ever assessed the lawfulness of the medical monitoring of torture, as it did with the use of the “enhanced” techniques themselves.
The use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in interrogations of detainees in US custody has been well-documented by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and others. The role of health professionals in designing, monitoring and participating in torture also has been investigated and publicly documented. This current report provides evidence that in addition to medical complicity in torture, health professionals participated in research and experimentation on detainees in US custody.
The use of human beings as research subjects has a long and disturbing history filled with misguided and often willfully unethical experimentation. Ethical codes and federal regulations have been established to protect human subjects from harm and include clear standards for informed consent of participants in research, an absence of coercion, and a requirement for rigorous scientific procedures. The essence of the ethical and legal protections for human subjects is that the subjects, especially vulnerable populations such as prisoners, must be treated with the dignity befitting human beings and not simply as experimental guinea pigs.
The use of health professionals to monitor intentionally harmful interrogation techniques places them in the service of national security objectives which are in conflict with the interests of those who they are monitoring. The result has been a co-opting of health professionals by the national security apparatus and a violation of the highest medical admonition to “do no harm.” Until the questions examined in this paper are answered and, if ethical violations or crimes were committed, those responsible are held accountable, the misuse of medical and scientific expertise for expedient and non-therapeutic goals jeopardizes the ethical integrity of the profession, and the public trust in the healing professions risks being seriously compromised.
Images of missile and cluster munitions point to US role in fatal attack in Yemen.
Amnesty International
7 June 2010
Amnesty International has released images of a US-manufactured cruise missile that carried cluster munitions, apparently taken following an attack on an alleged al-Qa’ida training camp in Yemen that killed 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children.
The 17 December 2009 attack on the community of al-Ma'jalah in the Abyan area in the south of Yemen killed 55 people including 14 alleged members of al-Qa’ida.
“A military strike of this kind against alleged militants without an attempt to detain them is at the very least unlawful. The fact that so many of the victims were actually women and children indicates that the attack was in fact grossly irresponsible, particularly given the likely use of cluster munitions,” said Philip Luther, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme.
The Yemeni government has said its forces alone carried out the attack on al-Ma'jalah, the site of an alleged al-Qa'ida training camp in al-Mahfad district, Abyan Governorate.
Shortly after the attack some US media reported alleged statements by unnamed US government sources who said that US cruise missiles launched on presidential orders had been fired at two alleged al-Qa'ida sites in Yemen.
“Based on the evidence provided by these photographs, the US government must disclose what role it played in the al-Ma'jalah attack, and all governments involved must show what steps they took to prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries,” said Philip Luther.
The photographs enable the positive identification of damaged missile parts, which appear to be from the payload, mid-body, aft-body and propulsion sections of a BGM-109D Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile.
This type of missile, launched from a warship or submarine, is designed to carry a payload of 166 cluster submunitions (bomblets) which each explode into over 200 sharp steel fragments that can cause injuries up to 150m away. An incendiary material inside the bomblet also spreads fragments of burning zirconium designed to set fire to nearby flammable objects.
A further photograph, apparently taken within half an hour of the others, shows an unexploded BLU 97 A/B submunition itself, the type carried by BGM-109D missiles. These missiles are known to be held only by US forces and Yemeni armed forces are unlikely to be capable of using such a missile.
Amnesty International has requested information from the Pentagon about the involvement of US forces in the al-Ma'jalah attack, and what precautions may have been taken to minimize deaths and injuries, but has yet to receive a response.
“Amnesty International is gravely concerned by evidence that cluster munitions appear to have been used in Yemen, when most states around the world have committed to comprehensively ban these weapons,” said Mike Lewis, Amnesty International's arms control researcher.
“Cluster munitions have indiscriminate effects and unexploded bomblets threaten lives and livelihoods for years afterwards. All governments responsible for using them must urgently provide assistance to clear unexploded munitions.”
Neither the USA nor Yemen has yet signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty designed to comprehensively ban such weapons which is due to enter into force on 1 August 2010.
A Yemeni parliamentary committee that investigated the 17 December 2009 attack reported in February that 41 people it described as civilians had been killed. In its report the committee said that on arrival at the scene of the attack in al-Ma’jalah it “found that all the homes and their contents were burnt and all that was left were traces of furniture.”
It said the committee “found traces of blood of the victims and a number of holes in the ground left by the bombing… as well as a number of unexploded bombs”, and that one survivor told the committee that his family, who were killed although they had committed no crime, were sleeping when the missiles struck on the morning of 17 December 2009.
In its report, the Yemeni parliamentary committee said the Yemeni government should open a judicial investigation into the attack and bring to justice those responsible for the killings of civilians, but no such investigation is known to have been held as yet.
The committee reported statements by the Abyan Governorate authorities that 14 alleged members of al-Qa’ida were also killed in the attack, but said it had been unable to obtain information confirming this and was able to obtain the name of only one of the 14 from the Abyan authorities.
7 June 2010
Amnesty International has released images of a US-manufactured cruise missile that carried cluster munitions, apparently taken following an attack on an alleged al-Qa’ida training camp in Yemen that killed 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children.
The 17 December 2009 attack on the community of al-Ma'jalah in the Abyan area in the south of Yemen killed 55 people including 14 alleged members of al-Qa’ida.
“A military strike of this kind against alleged militants without an attempt to detain them is at the very least unlawful. The fact that so many of the victims were actually women and children indicates that the attack was in fact grossly irresponsible, particularly given the likely use of cluster munitions,” said Philip Luther, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme.
The Yemeni government has said its forces alone carried out the attack on al-Ma'jalah, the site of an alleged al-Qa'ida training camp in al-Mahfad district, Abyan Governorate.
Shortly after the attack some US media reported alleged statements by unnamed US government sources who said that US cruise missiles launched on presidential orders had been fired at two alleged al-Qa'ida sites in Yemen.
“Based on the evidence provided by these photographs, the US government must disclose what role it played in the al-Ma'jalah attack, and all governments involved must show what steps they took to prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries,” said Philip Luther.
The photographs enable the positive identification of damaged missile parts, which appear to be from the payload, mid-body, aft-body and propulsion sections of a BGM-109D Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile.
This type of missile, launched from a warship or submarine, is designed to carry a payload of 166 cluster submunitions (bomblets) which each explode into over 200 sharp steel fragments that can cause injuries up to 150m away. An incendiary material inside the bomblet also spreads fragments of burning zirconium designed to set fire to nearby flammable objects.
A further photograph, apparently taken within half an hour of the others, shows an unexploded BLU 97 A/B submunition itself, the type carried by BGM-109D missiles. These missiles are known to be held only by US forces and Yemeni armed forces are unlikely to be capable of using such a missile.
Amnesty International has requested information from the Pentagon about the involvement of US forces in the al-Ma'jalah attack, and what precautions may have been taken to minimize deaths and injuries, but has yet to receive a response.
“Amnesty International is gravely concerned by evidence that cluster munitions appear to have been used in Yemen, when most states around the world have committed to comprehensively ban these weapons,” said Mike Lewis, Amnesty International's arms control researcher.
“Cluster munitions have indiscriminate effects and unexploded bomblets threaten lives and livelihoods for years afterwards. All governments responsible for using them must urgently provide assistance to clear unexploded munitions.”
Neither the USA nor Yemen has yet signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty designed to comprehensively ban such weapons which is due to enter into force on 1 August 2010.
A Yemeni parliamentary committee that investigated the 17 December 2009 attack reported in February that 41 people it described as civilians had been killed. In its report the committee said that on arrival at the scene of the attack in al-Ma’jalah it “found that all the homes and their contents were burnt and all that was left were traces of furniture.”
It said the committee “found traces of blood of the victims and a number of holes in the ground left by the bombing… as well as a number of unexploded bombs”, and that one survivor told the committee that his family, who were killed although they had committed no crime, were sleeping when the missiles struck on the morning of 17 December 2009.
In its report, the Yemeni parliamentary committee said the Yemeni government should open a judicial investigation into the attack and bring to justice those responsible for the killings of civilians, but no such investigation is known to have been held as yet.
The committee reported statements by the Abyan Governorate authorities that 14 alleged members of al-Qa’ida were also killed in the attack, but said it had been unable to obtain information confirming this and was able to obtain the name of only one of the 14 from the Abyan authorities.
US used cluster bombs, killed civilians in Yemen.
The Australian
7 June 2010
A US cruise missile carrying cluster bombs was behind a December attack in Yemen that killed 55 people, most of them civilians, Amnesty International (AI) said today.
The London-based rights group released photographs that it said showed the remains of a US-made Tomahawk missile and unexploded cluster bombs that were apparently used in the December 17, 2009 attack on the rural community of Al-Maajala in Yemen's southern Abyan province.
"Amnesty International is gravely concerned by evidence that cluster munitions appear to have been used in Yemen,'' said Mike Lewis, the group's arms control researcher.
"Cluster munitions have indiscriminate effects and unexploded bomblets threaten lives and livelihoods for years afterwards,'' he said.
"A military strike of this kind against alleged militants without an attempt to detain them is at the very least unlawful,'' said Philip Luther, deputy director of AI's Middle East and North Africa Programme.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageAustralia welcomes UK's cluster bomb ban
Adelaide Now, 27 Mar 2010
Vow to help Yemen 'turn tide' on terror
The Australian, 28 Jan 2010
Somali insurgents threaten to join front
The Australian, 3 Jan 2010
US, Britain to fight al-Qa'ida in Yemen
The Australian, 3 Jan 2010
Yemenis in raid on al-Qa'ida stronghold
The Australian, 31 Dec 2009
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Yemen's defence ministry had claimed responsibility for the attack without mentioning a US role, saying between 24 and 30 militants had been killed at an alleged Al-Qa'ida training camp.
But a local official said 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed "indiscriminately.''
AI said that a Yemeni parliamentary committee reported in February that in addition to 14 alleged Al-Qa'ida militants, 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children, were killed in the attack.
"The fact that so many of the victims were actually women and children indicates that the attack was in fact grossly irresponsible, particularly given the likely use of cluster munitions,'' Luther said.
AI said photographs it had obtained showed damaged remains of the BGM-109D Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile.
"This type of missile, launched from a warship or submarine, is designed to carry a payload of 166 cluster sub-munitions (bomblets) which each explode into over 200 sharp steel fragments that can cause injuries up to 150 metres (about 500 feet) away,'' an AI statement said.
"An incendiary material inside the bomblet also spreads fragments of burning zirconium designed to set fire to nearby flammable objects,'' it said.
The Yemen parliamentary committee had said when it visited the site that "all the homes and their contents were burnt and all that was left were traces of furniture,'' AI said.
AI said it had requested information about the attack from the Pentagon, but had not yet received a response.
Amnesty said it had obtained the photographs from its own sources, but had not released them earlier in order to ascertain their authenticity and give the United States time to respond.
The United States and Yemen have not yet signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty designed to comprehensively ban such weapons which is due to enter into force on 1 August, 2010.
7 June 2010
A US cruise missile carrying cluster bombs was behind a December attack in Yemen that killed 55 people, most of them civilians, Amnesty International (AI) said today.
The London-based rights group released photographs that it said showed the remains of a US-made Tomahawk missile and unexploded cluster bombs that were apparently used in the December 17, 2009 attack on the rural community of Al-Maajala in Yemen's southern Abyan province.
"Amnesty International is gravely concerned by evidence that cluster munitions appear to have been used in Yemen,'' said Mike Lewis, the group's arms control researcher.
"Cluster munitions have indiscriminate effects and unexploded bomblets threaten lives and livelihoods for years afterwards,'' he said.
"A military strike of this kind against alleged militants without an attempt to detain them is at the very least unlawful,'' said Philip Luther, deputy director of AI's Middle East and North Africa Programme.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageAustralia welcomes UK's cluster bomb ban
Adelaide Now, 27 Mar 2010
Vow to help Yemen 'turn tide' on terror
The Australian, 28 Jan 2010
Somali insurgents threaten to join front
The Australian, 3 Jan 2010
US, Britain to fight al-Qa'ida in Yemen
The Australian, 3 Jan 2010
Yemenis in raid on al-Qa'ida stronghold
The Australian, 31 Dec 2009
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Yemen's defence ministry had claimed responsibility for the attack without mentioning a US role, saying between 24 and 30 militants had been killed at an alleged Al-Qa'ida training camp.
But a local official said 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed "indiscriminately.''
AI said that a Yemeni parliamentary committee reported in February that in addition to 14 alleged Al-Qa'ida militants, 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children, were killed in the attack.
"The fact that so many of the victims were actually women and children indicates that the attack was in fact grossly irresponsible, particularly given the likely use of cluster munitions,'' Luther said.
AI said photographs it had obtained showed damaged remains of the BGM-109D Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile.
"This type of missile, launched from a warship or submarine, is designed to carry a payload of 166 cluster sub-munitions (bomblets) which each explode into over 200 sharp steel fragments that can cause injuries up to 150 metres (about 500 feet) away,'' an AI statement said.
"An incendiary material inside the bomblet also spreads fragments of burning zirconium designed to set fire to nearby flammable objects,'' it said.
The Yemen parliamentary committee had said when it visited the site that "all the homes and their contents were burnt and all that was left were traces of furniture,'' AI said.
AI said it had requested information about the attack from the Pentagon, but had not yet received a response.
Amnesty said it had obtained the photographs from its own sources, but had not released them earlier in order to ascertain their authenticity and give the United States time to respond.
The United States and Yemen have not yet signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty designed to comprehensively ban such weapons which is due to enter into force on 1 August, 2010.
University of Wisconsin Law School Demands Sen. Feingold Take Action to Secure Erlinder's Release.
From: University of Wisconsin Law School
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
June 4, 2010
To: Senator Russell Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
FAX: 202-224-2725
Dear Senator Feingold,
We are faculty, academic staff, and instructors employed at the University of Wisconsin Law School. We are concerned that one of our fellow legal educators, Professor Peter Erlinder of William Mitchell College of Law, is currently imprisoned in Rwanda, where he traveled in order to defend a Rwandan jailed and charged with the crime of “genocide ideology”. Now Professor Erlinder is charged with the same offense and confined by the Rwandan authorities, who are apparently concerned by Professor Erlinder’s defense of still other persons at the International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania.
We have chosen to educate new lawyers because of our devotion to the ideals of our profession. Certainly one of the law’s most cherished principles has been the right for anyone threatened with deprivation of liberty to have an opportunity to confront any charges in open hearing, represented by counsel of his/her choice. Professor Erlinder has been an active criminal defense lawyer, frequently representing unpopular defendants without requesting a fee. It goes without saying that arresting a lawyer for zealously defending persons who may be unpopular, at least with a current government, can only discourage others from following the noble legal tradition that Professor Erlinder and many others have upheld.
We know that you are Chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You have access to much more information about Professor Erlinder’s circumstance, the charges against him, and the actions of our embassy in Rwanda than we do. We ask that you give Professor Erlinder’s situation your immediate attention. There is considerable urgency to this matter. Unless there are circumstances of which we are unaware, Professor Erlinder should be immediately released from custody. And if he chooses to do so, he should be allowed to resume defense of his client, the original purpose of his trip to Rwanda.
Sincerely (titles for identification only),
Anuj Desai
Peter Carstensen
Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., Dean
William C. Whitford, Professor of Law Emeritus
Michelle LaVigne, Clinical Professor of Law
Nilesh Patel, J.D. Advisor, Office of Career Services
Meredith Ross, Clinical Professor of Law
Alan Weisbard, Professor of Law Emeritus
Elizabeth Mertz, Professor of Law
Michael Oeser, Hastie Fellow
Cecelia Klingele, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Adam Stevenson, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Sarah Davis, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Leslie Shear, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Brad Snyder, Assistant Professor of Law
Kenneth Streit, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Rebecca Scheller, Assistant Director for Admissions and Financial Aid
Kathryn Hendley, Professor of Law and Political Science
Byron Lichstein, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Gretchen Viney, Clinical Professor of Law
Neil Komesar, Professor of Law Emeritus
Mary Prosser, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Mitch, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Ben Kempinen, Clinical Professor of Law
Michael Hall, Assistant Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid
Ted Finman, Professor of Law Emeritus
David S. Schwartz, Professor of Law
Joseph Thome, Professor of Law Emeritus
Marc S. Galanter, Professor of Law Emeritus
Aviva Kaiser, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
John Kidwell, Professor of Law Emeritus
William H. Clune, Professor of Law Emeritus
Heinz Klug, Professor of Law
Marygold S. Melli, Professor of Law Emeritus
John Ohnesorge, Associate Professor of Law
Katherine Findley, Clincal Assistant Professor of Law
Marsha M. Mansfield, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Gerald Thain, Professor of Law Emeritus
Alexandra Huneeus, Assistant Professor of Law
Ruth Robarts, Assistant Dean for Students and Academic Affairs
Ralph Cagle, Clinical Professor of Law
Kelly Kennington, PhD, Law & Society Postdoctoral Fellow
Peggy Crooks Nowicki, Adjunct Professor of Law
Keith Findley, Clincal Professor of Law
Susan Katcher, Senior Lecturer in Law
Rosa Frazier, Clincal Assistant Professor of Law
Nina Camic, Professor of Law
Michael S. Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Howard Erlanger, Professor of Law
Tonya L. Brito, Professor of Law
Kristin Davis, Academic Staff
Herman Goldstein, Professor of Law Emeritus
Sarah Orr, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus
Steven M. Barkan, Professor of Law
Stewart Macaulay, Professor of Law Emeritus
Mitra Shirafi, Assistant Professor of Law
Stephen J. Herzberg, Professor of Law Emeritus
Shubha Ghosh, Professor of Law
Jini M. Rabas, Director of Alumni Relations
Martha E. Gaines, Clinical Professor of Law
Lisa Alexander, Assistant Professor of Law
Thomas Mitchell, Associate Professor of Law
John Pray, Professor of Law
Linda Greene, Professor of Law
Peter Moreno, Instructor in Law
Ion Meyn, Clinical Instructor
Michael E. Smith, Professor of Law Emeritus
William Ebbot, Assistant Director, Law Library
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
June 4, 2010
To: Senator Russell Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
FAX: 202-224-2725
Dear Senator Feingold,
We are faculty, academic staff, and instructors employed at the University of Wisconsin Law School. We are concerned that one of our fellow legal educators, Professor Peter Erlinder of William Mitchell College of Law, is currently imprisoned in Rwanda, where he traveled in order to defend a Rwandan jailed and charged with the crime of “genocide ideology”. Now Professor Erlinder is charged with the same offense and confined by the Rwandan authorities, who are apparently concerned by Professor Erlinder’s defense of still other persons at the International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania.
We have chosen to educate new lawyers because of our devotion to the ideals of our profession. Certainly one of the law’s most cherished principles has been the right for anyone threatened with deprivation of liberty to have an opportunity to confront any charges in open hearing, represented by counsel of his/her choice. Professor Erlinder has been an active criminal defense lawyer, frequently representing unpopular defendants without requesting a fee. It goes without saying that arresting a lawyer for zealously defending persons who may be unpopular, at least with a current government, can only discourage others from following the noble legal tradition that Professor Erlinder and many others have upheld.
We know that you are Chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You have access to much more information about Professor Erlinder’s circumstance, the charges against him, and the actions of our embassy in Rwanda than we do. We ask that you give Professor Erlinder’s situation your immediate attention. There is considerable urgency to this matter. Unless there are circumstances of which we are unaware, Professor Erlinder should be immediately released from custody. And if he chooses to do so, he should be allowed to resume defense of his client, the original purpose of his trip to Rwanda.
Sincerely (titles for identification only),
Anuj Desai
Peter Carstensen
Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., Dean
William C. Whitford, Professor of Law Emeritus
Michelle LaVigne, Clinical Professor of Law
Nilesh Patel, J.D. Advisor, Office of Career Services
Meredith Ross, Clinical Professor of Law
Alan Weisbard, Professor of Law Emeritus
Elizabeth Mertz, Professor of Law
Michael Oeser, Hastie Fellow
Cecelia Klingele, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Adam Stevenson, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Sarah Davis, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Leslie Shear, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Brad Snyder, Assistant Professor of Law
Kenneth Streit, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Rebecca Scheller, Assistant Director for Admissions and Financial Aid
Kathryn Hendley, Professor of Law and Political Science
Byron Lichstein, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Gretchen Viney, Clinical Professor of Law
Neil Komesar, Professor of Law Emeritus
Mary Prosser, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Mitch, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Ben Kempinen, Clinical Professor of Law
Michael Hall, Assistant Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid
Ted Finman, Professor of Law Emeritus
David S. Schwartz, Professor of Law
Joseph Thome, Professor of Law Emeritus
Marc S. Galanter, Professor of Law Emeritus
Aviva Kaiser, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
John Kidwell, Professor of Law Emeritus
William H. Clune, Professor of Law Emeritus
Heinz Klug, Professor of Law
Marygold S. Melli, Professor of Law Emeritus
John Ohnesorge, Associate Professor of Law
Katherine Findley, Clincal Assistant Professor of Law
Marsha M. Mansfield, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Gerald Thain, Professor of Law Emeritus
Alexandra Huneeus, Assistant Professor of Law
Ruth Robarts, Assistant Dean for Students and Academic Affairs
Ralph Cagle, Clinical Professor of Law
Kelly Kennington, PhD, Law & Society Postdoctoral Fellow
Peggy Crooks Nowicki, Adjunct Professor of Law
Keith Findley, Clincal Professor of Law
Susan Katcher, Senior Lecturer in Law
Rosa Frazier, Clincal Assistant Professor of Law
Nina Camic, Professor of Law
Michael S. Scott, Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Howard Erlanger, Professor of Law
Tonya L. Brito, Professor of Law
Kristin Davis, Academic Staff
Herman Goldstein, Professor of Law Emeritus
Sarah Orr, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus
Steven M. Barkan, Professor of Law
Stewart Macaulay, Professor of Law Emeritus
Mitra Shirafi, Assistant Professor of Law
Stephen J. Herzberg, Professor of Law Emeritus
Shubha Ghosh, Professor of Law
Jini M. Rabas, Director of Alumni Relations
Martha E. Gaines, Clinical Professor of Law
Lisa Alexander, Assistant Professor of Law
Thomas Mitchell, Associate Professor of Law
John Pray, Professor of Law
Linda Greene, Professor of Law
Peter Moreno, Instructor in Law
Ion Meyn, Clinical Instructor
Michael E. Smith, Professor of Law Emeritus
William Ebbot, Assistant Director, Law Library
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
