IN THE NEWS: Google Takes Action

Human Rights USA applauds Google's decision to turn its words into action by shutting down its search service in the Chinese mainland. As we shared with you several months ago, Google threatened to no longer bow to Beijing's demands following a cyber-attack that allegedly originated in China. Yesterday, Google stated it would stop censoring search results on its site in China and began to route users through its site in Hong Kong.

Unfortunately, Chinese government censors are now censoring results routed through the Google Hong Kong sites. Click here to see Google's Mainland China service availability. Stay tuned here for further developments....

IN THE NEWS: Koh and Bellinger on International Law in the U.S.

As Washington, DC gets back up and running after last week's severe snow storm, a large group of people (ok, ok, mostly lawyers) interested in international law gathered yesterday to hear Harold Koh, Legal Advisor to the State Department, and his predecessor, John Bellinger III, speak about the role of the Office of the Legal Advisor and the status of international law in the United States. Koh likened the Obama administration’s record over the past year to digging out from a snowstorm, noting that “[i]t takes a lot more time to dig out from a snowstorm than it does for the snow to fall.”

Last month marked the anniversary of President Obama’s signing three executive orders that were intended to signal a shift in U.S. foreign policy. They ordered (1) the closing of Guantanamo Bay; (2) the suspension of the C.I.A. interrogation program; and (3) the review of all U.S. government detention policies and legal positions. Although these executive orders were met with wide acclaim across the international community, the Obama administration continues to face difficulty implementing them.

Koh noted that implementing the executive orders and other foreign policy initiatives will take time. “We have been tasked with unwinding policies that we would not have implemented,” Koh said. When further questioned by Bellinger why the Obama administration had not acted swiftly in forging stronger ties with the International Court of Justice, Koh replied that addressing these issues would require an act by Congress.

Koh also addressed the need for the United States to ratify several treaties - including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Having been confirmed by 62 votes, Koh joked that he "knows how a treaty feels," as treaties require 67 votes to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.

To read further coverage of the event, click here. The event was broadcast by C-SPAN - to watch this interesting and entertaining discussion, click here.

Prepared with the assistance of International Justice Project Intern Daniel Cousineau.

BREAKING NEWS: Final Judgment Issued in Civil Case Against Charles Taylor, Jr. – Plaintiffs Awarded $22.4 Million

On Friday, February 5, 2010, the court in the civil case against Charles Taylor, Jr. awarded a total of $22.4 million in damages to our five clients for the atrocities they endured at the hands of Taylor Jr. and the Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU) forces under his command. Piper Hendricks, International Justice Project Director for the World Organization for Human Rights USA, states, “We are pleased that this significant award recognizes the egregious nature of the extraordinarily brutal acts our clients suffered and the lasting impact those acts have had. This award will serve as a deterrent to others who believe they could mistreat fellow humans in this manner and never be held accountable.”

The order on damages outlines the multiple forms of torture; cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment; arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention to which the plaintiffs were subjected and recognizes the past, present and future physical and mental suffering those abuses inflicted. As the order states, “Mr. Taylor’s horrific and repeated actions, as detailed in the complaint and testified to by the plaintiffs, are a chilling example of man’s inhumanity to man, to borrow a phrase from Robert Burns. Such actions, because they were designed to strip the plaintiffs of their humanity and dignity, deserve the strongest judicial condemnation […].”

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by the World Organization for Human Rights USA, with assistance from the Carlos A. Costa Legal Clinic of Florida International University. Our next step in this matter is to enforce this judgment. This significant award can allow our clients to cover the financial burdens they face because of Taylor Jr. and offer a better chance of making the most of the lives they now lead. Any assets recovered will provide a remedy to the plaintiffs for past and ongoing medical expenses, psychological harms, lost wages, destroyed property, other damages inflicted.


For a PDF of the official press release, click here.

To read coverage from Curt Anderson of the Associated Press, read his Washington Post article here.

ON THE RADAR SCREEN

Google and the National Security Agency have announced a "cooperative research and development agreement" designed to address the sophisticated cyber attacks on Google in the past several months. We will continue to update our readers as more information comes to light on this issue

For more, visit the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

In the News: Updates re China and Google

The United States Senate continues to keep an eye on the human rights practices of technology companies, as evidenced by an announcement by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law will hold a hearing this month on global Internet freedom. Read the release from his Office here. On Tuesday, February 2, 2010, in response to the recent cyber attacks against Google in China (for more, on our coverage of that event click here and here), Durbin asked 30 leading companies, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, IBM, Nokia and Twitter, for information about their human rights practices in China. Stay tuned for more on the hearing...

In the meantime, we thought our readers might be interested in knowing what Bill Gates has to say about Google's announcement. According to the New York Times, "Mr. Gates declared himself unimpressed and a bit perplexed by Google’s recent threat to drop its search business in China to protest Chinese censorship of search after attacks apparently intended to spy on Gmail accounts of human-rights activists. 'They’ve done nothing and gotten a lot of credit for it,' Mr. Gates said." Let's hope they DO something soon. For the full article, click here.

Civil Trial Against Charles Taylor Jr.: Day 4

The trial in the civil case against Charles Taylor, Jr. resumed yesterday with testimony from our expert witness, psychologist Jethro Toomer. Our colleague from FIU, Professor Troy Elder, reviewed with the expert the horrors that each of the plaintiffs in the case endured. Dr. Toomer explained that all five of them had been traumatized by the events they endured at the hands of Taylor, Jr. and the ATU, and would never be the same because of those experiences. "There is no cure," Dr. Toomer stated, as trauma forever changes one's life. Instead, trauma survivors should seek to restore "equilibrium." Dr. Toomer discussed his diagnosis and prognosis for each plaintiff - adding a valuable medical perspective to the court record that the plaintiffs themselves began in December. When Professor Elder completed the direct examination, Taylor Jr. exercised his right to cross-examine Dr. Toomer (something Taylor, Jr. had not done of any of the plaintiffs). Taylor, Jr. began his questions from a pre-prepared list, focusing on the data Dr. Toomer used to form his expert opinion. Taylor, Jr. then quizzed Dr. Toomer on his knowledge of Liberian history and the focus of several books and articles Dr. Toomer had written. When direct, cross, and re-direct were complete, the Judge scheduled closing arguments for next Friday. For more coverage, click here.

We enjoy hearing from those of you following this case and appreciate your support. As many of you know, 2009 was financially unkind to many non-profits and, unfortunately, Human Rights USA was no exception. Thankfully, we have not had to close our doors… but we continue to face severe financial constraints in our efforts to uphold human rights around the world. Such efforts sometimes carry a large price tag, and this case is no exception. We believe the fight to support human rights is worth every penny. But if we are going to continue this work – WE NEED YOUR HELP.

We invite you to support a piece of history by sponsoring a part of this civil case. A donation of $2,600 covers the cost of one client's air travel from Liberia to Miami to testify at trial. $448 covers the cost of our attorney's vaccinations prior to travel to Liberia to meet with our clients and gather information for trial. $400 covers the cost of one client's or attorney's lodging over the course of the trial. Your donation of $350 would cover the cost of filing the Complaint. Each donation of $131 would cover the cost of one visa for entry from Liberia into the United States to participate in trial. $75 covers the cost of one of our attorney's "pro hac vice" appearance in the federal court. $40 would cover the cost of the bag lunches we made for our attorneys and clients during the trial. And a donation of $25 would cover the cost of producing photographic exhibits for trial. We ask you to take a moment to decide what amount you can afford to give and then click here to own a part of this case…and to continue assisting survivors of human rights abuses to hold the violators accountable.

BREAKING NEWS: Secretary Clinton’s Address Regarding Internet Freedom – the Power to Energize or Destroy

In her address regarding internet freedom today at the Newseum in Washington, DC, Secretary of State Clinton recognized American companies’ “shared responsibility” to protect the freedom of expression and called on business to make a principled stand to support that freedom, even if such a stand is not the most profitable option. Human Rights USA applauds these remarks. In the coming months, the Department of State will hold a series of talks regarding this shared responsibility – and we call on American companies to pay attention and participate.

Noting that the United States “stand[s] for a single internet,” Secretary Clinton stated that foreign governments who censor and limit the internet are creating an “Information Curtain” and contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (A recent victim of such activity, who was among many who have been targeted in Egypt for blogging, was present in the audience; more here). The freedom to connect, she explained, is the cyberspace version of the freedom of assembly and the United States is taking concrete steps to support that freedom, including addressing internet freedom in the first resolution it introduced after rejoining the UN Human Rights Council.

Though information is a powerful tool to create real change – from allowing word of atrocities in Iran to reach the rest of the world to locating a young girl amidst the rubble in Haiti – issues of hate speech and anonymous speech must be addressed. Secretary Clinton recognized that the internet is “not an unmitigated blessing” – it has the power to energize…but it also has the power to destroy. We encourage the American government, American companies, foreign governments and companies and you, internet users, to do your part to make the internet a force for good.

For more information on the topics covered in Secretary Clinton’s address, including the link between internet access and economic growth, the work in 40 countries to help those who are silenced, and the work of the European Commission on Cybercrime (see the Convention here and info from DOJ here), click here for coverage from Business Week, here for the AP, here for the New York Times, and here for CNN.




(With research assistance from International Justice Project interns Daniel Cousineau and Katie Miller)

Haiti: Human rights in a time of disaster

As many of us are aware, a devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, with most of the destruction occurring in the capital, Port au Prince. The death toll is estimated to be at about 200,000 people, with many people still missing, and another 1.5 million people left homeless. The search for survivors continues, as many people are believed to be trapped inside collapsed buildings, even as more quakes and aftershocks continue to beleaguer the already suffering nation.

Amidst the devastation of the earthquake, the protection of Haitians’ basic human rights should be the top priority. Natural disasters such as the Haitian earthquake may destroy infrastructure and order, but they do not alter human rights protections, which require specific protection in such precarious times. Haunting images from the streets of the capital, where thousands of Haitians are now forced to live, show people in great need of food, water, shelter, clothes, and medical supplies. Additionally, the lack of adequate law enforcement personnel in Haiti creates a serious security threat as widespread violence and looting have been reported in Port au Prince.

Because the Haitian government is currently unable to adequately address the needs of its people, the international community has assumed the government’s international obligations by providing humanitarian aid in the form of rescue teams, security troops, and supplies to protect Haitians’ rights to basic needs and security. As required by international standards of disaster relief, special attention must be given to Haitian women and children because of their vulnerability to human rights violations in such an environment. International actors must also ensure that their own activities do not further contribute to human rights violations; aid must be provided equally and indiscriminately.

After basic relief needs are met, protection of Haitians’ human rights must remain a priority. The international community must work with the Haitian government to provide rights beyond basic survival needs, such as the rights to education, health, and work, as well as other political, economic, and cultural rights. International attention must not fade when the initial surprise of the event does and the aftershocks cease. As other survivors of natural disaster will readily attest, the needs of the Haitian people will not end with provision of food, water, and shelter to the displaced persons. The international community should focus on strengthening and rebuilding the Haitian state to provide all human rights protections to its citizens.

The matter of Haitians who seek refuge in other countries, including the United States, must also be addressed. Under international law, individuals have the right not to be forcibly returned to the country they are fleeing if returning would post a threat to their life, security, or freedom. In this regard, the U.S. government has already temporarily suspended deportations to Haiti and has granted temporary protected status to Haitians currently in the U.S., allowing them to reside and work in the U.S. for an additional 18 months. Before initial relief efforts expire, however, the international community should plan how to respect the human rights of Haitian refugees.

The first independent nation in Latin America, Haiti is now widely known only as the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation. The recent earthquake is the latest in a series of hindrances to the country’s progress. To learn a bit more about Haiti, click here for a timeline of key events in Haitian history.

There are many ways for you to aid in Haitian relief efforts. A list of organizations accepting money donations can be found here. Organizations accepting these donations can be found here. For up to date information on Haiti and the relief efforts there, click here.

- By Kacey Mordecai, Legal Intern, International Justice Project

Update regarding Google in China: Meetings and Mobile Phones

A large outcry of support followed Google’s January 12 announcement that it is no longer willing to continue censoring results on Google.cn. This statement by Google is a definite step in the right direction and shows the company’s willingness to take a hard line against the Chinese government. Google is optimistic that it can persuade the Chinese government to agree to changes that will allow the display of uncensored search results. As of Friday, January 15, 2010, Google had not set a deadline for an agreement and, while Google had alerted the Chinese Government to its plan, a spokesperson for Google did not know whether any additional meetings had been scheduled. Pending the results of any agreement with the Chinese government, business will continue as it did before last Tuesday’s announcement. However, while not confirmed as directly related to the dispute with the Chinese government, today Google postponed the launch of its mobile phone in China that was scheduled to occur tomorrow.

For now, the question remains whether Google will have the determination to hold its hard line and follow through on its threat to pull out of China if no acceptable agreement can be reached. Google’s willingness to relinquish a share of the largest internet market in the world would send a powerful message that the company is not willing to compromise the human rights of any people and set an example for other corporations currently doing business in China. We hope that Google will reverse the trend the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. noted so many years ago in stating, “Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.”

For more information on the debate surrounding whether Google will pull out of China click here.

~By Lindsey Ingraham, Legal Intern, International Justice Project

Taylor Civil Trial Update: The Price of Justice

Happy 2010 to all of you from all of us at Human Rights USA! We hope that your new year is off to a wonderful start. As many of you know, 2009 was financially unkind to many non-profits and, unfortunately, Human Rights USA was no exception. Thankfully, we have not had to close our doors… but we continue to face severe financial constraints in our efforts to uphold human rights around the world. And such efforts sometimes carry a large price tag, as a tally of the many expenses we incurred in recent months to bring the civil case against Charles Taylor, Jr. reveals. We believe the fight to support human rights is worth every penny. But if we are going to continue this work – WE NEED YOUR HELP.

We invite you to support a piece of history by sponsoring a part of the civil case. A donation of $2,600 covers the cost of one client's air travel from Liberia to Miami to testify at trial. $448 covers the cost of our attorney's vaccinations prior to travel to Liberia to meet with our clients and gather information for trial. $400 covers the cost of one client's or attorney's lodging over the course of the trial. Your donation of $350 would cover the cost of filing the Complaint. Each donation of $131 would cover the cost of one visa for entry from Liberia into the United States to participate in trial. $75 covers the cost of one of our attorney's "pro hac vice" appearance in the federal court. $40 would cover the cost of the bag lunches we made for our attorneys and clients during the trial. And a donation of $25 would cover the cost of producing photographic exhibits for trial. We ask you to take a moment to decide what amount you can afford to give and then click here to own a part of this case…and to continue assisting survivors of human rights abuses to hold the violators accountable.

Civil Trial Against Charles Taylor, Jr.: Day 1 (cont'd)

Our civil trial began today after we addressed several preliminary matters raised by Defendant Taylor. With assistance from the Public Defenders in his criminal case, Defendant Taylor moved to vacate the default judgment entered last May and postpone the trial. After ensuring that Defendant Taylor understood his requests and his rights, the judge denied Defendant Taylor's motion to postpone the trial. The judge then granted our request to have two of our clients who were not able to travel to the United States testify by video conference. (The first such testimony should take place Tuesday.)

Then, after the Court certified an interpreter to assist with testimony (Liberian English differs from American English), the trial got underway with testimony from our first witness. His testimony addressed the physical abuse he endured at the hands of Defendant Taylor and his ATU soldiers. This witness also testified about the lasting physical, emotional, and financial impact he still suffers today.

We will update you on the trial's progress tomorrow. In the meantime, our clients are adjusting to the new time zone and two tried their first hamburger (and liked it!) last night. We have discovered that habenero peppers are nearly hot enough to substitute for Liberian pepper in cooking. And, miraculously to those of us who cannot cook, one client was able to make perfect rice in the small frying pan provided in the kitchenettes of the hotel where we are staying.

Civil Trial Against Charles Taylor, Jr.: Day 1

The civil trial against Charles Taylor, Jr. begins today in the Southern District of Florida. Three of the five plaintiffs safely arrived in the United States to participate in person. We will be providing accounts from the trial at this site over the course of the next few days and a more detailed account once the trial has concluded.

For an AP Article by Curt Anderson regarding the case, please click here.

HRUSA Blogs from Liberia, Day 7: Women in Liberia

From my short time here, it appears to me that Liberian women are strong, elegant, and too often disrespected. As in many places in Africa, women (and many men, too) carry items on top of their heads. And by items, I mean to tell you I’ve seen HUGE baskets of shoes placed just so such that other shoes can be piled on top balanced on top of a woman’s head….while she had a baby tied to her back….while carrying items in both arms….while gliding over unpaved roads….then leaping buildings in a single bound. Ok, ok, I exaggerate - but only about the last part. The dress here varies for everyone - some wear business attire and others more traditional dress - gorgeous lapas (a long piece of cloth tied around the waist and reaching to ones lower leg or ankles) and dresses that are colorful and classy. Many wear casual t-shirts that would make vintage shirt fans drool. Seeing a guy wearing an “Everyone loves an Irish girl” shirt was fun, and there are “Obama Girl” shirts at every turn, but my favorite is the picture attached here - “A Wise Man Once Said: I don’t know, go ask a girl.” As the woman carrying this container on her head approached to sell a newspaper page full of peanuts to my fellow traveler, I knew I needed a picture.

While the shirt brought a smile to my face, many signs here have not. In a country that elected the first female President in all of Africa, you would hope not to need billboards reading “No Sex for Jobs” or “Stop Rape - It Could Be Your Ma.” Someone involved in training the military here told me that female candidates had to be told to stop washing the clothes of the male candidates. (I wonder if they had to be told more than once?) From what I hear, treatment of women in the interior is much worse than that in Monrovia. There, men can beat “their woman” and then pay the police to not bring any case against them.* The schools in the interior need vast improvement and children there are often needed to help with the farming. As such, most young women living outside of Monrovia do not receive as much education and often have children at a much younger age. And in other areas, it’s not uncommon to have more than one wife at the same time.

As you have probably gathered by now, I like to leave you with a more hopeful note, so will share that I have also had the pleasure to meet a few young women in Monrovia who are enrolled in school and love it. Murals are a popular way of spreading messages here (“Stop Malaria - Use a Mosquito Net for Your Family” and “There’s no cure for HIV - use protection”). One series of murals depicts one of various female leaders here with the caption “Another great Liberian woman - You Could be the Next.” Let’s hope that reaches many young women!

*Speaking of bribes, I forgot to mention that another person and I were stopped at a checkpoint coming back to downtown Friday night. (Note to my parents: stop reading here.) It was past sundown and we were not in a large vehicle that commands respect (read: emblazoned with the logo of an NGO (non-governmental organization) or other established entity like the UN), so the police flagged us down to stop. With flashlights shining in from my side of the car, they asked the driver if he had a license. He did. They paused, looked at me, then asked him to show them what was in the trunk. A few moments later, he returned to the driver’s seat and, as we drove off, said the officer told the driver to “find something for [him].” In response, the driver gave him “small small money.” (Around 40 Liberian dollars, I think.) The driver was clearly frustrated, explaining that the newer officers were the ones who abuse their authority, while the older, better-trained police apparently do not. A few minutes later, we were stopped again by another set of officers. Again, they looked in from the passenger side and the driver explained we’d just been stopped not five minutes ago and nothing had changed since then. They paused and asked if he had his license. Not one to be silent for long, I turned and answered with a firm, “Yes.” (Because being gruff with cops at night in a foreign country is always a good idea.) Another pause. Ok, they said, go ahead. I know some say, “When in Rome…” but, as a lawyer, it’s frustrating to see even the smallest example of corruption in the system. After all, the ultimate impact on the system as a whole and the average citizen’s faith therein is not “small small.”

~Piper

Check back in regularly for updates from Piper as she's in the field. Also - be sure to mark your calendars for November 30th at 4pm, when Piper will host a conference call to talk about her trip to Liberia and the upcoming trial against Chuckie Taylor. Be sure to post any questions you have for Piper in advance!

HRUSA Blogs from Liberia, Day 6: The Wicked Gruna Man.

“I am bouncing along unpaved roads in Liberia in a little 4x4 truck between a Cameroonian lawyer to my left, my self-proclaimed African father to my right, and “R” hanging on tightly in the back, as I’m hearing about some of the worst atrocities I can imagine and carefully holding a freshly grilled plantain wrapped in notebook paper,” I thought to myself today. This was not an average weekend day. We drove far outside of Monrovia and I’m not sure where to begin in sharing with you readers the stories I heard. Like many road trips, this one seemed a natural forum for sharing, but please note these stories may not be easy to read.

As I packed my bag this morning, I tossed in a few snacks, expecting that the men on the trip would not think to do so (more tomorrow on the situation for women in Liberia). Well, “R“ proved me wrong (and yes, I’ll admit, made me quietly regret my earlier sexist assumption) when we picked him up and, with a big smile, distributed packs of ginger cookies to all aboard the truck out of town. Through mouthfuls of the crunchy snacks, someone mentioned how hungry he had been since he skipped breakfast… and the conversation turned to how “R” had been so hungry at times during the war that he could hear ringing in his ears. “Bbbzzzmmmm,” he demonstrated. He recalled that his son had just been born at that time, so when he was able to find food, he gave it to his wife for her well-being and so the baby would be able to have breast milk. Around that point in our journey, we reached a bridge over one of the many beautiful rivers in Liberia. Men in the car recalled a time during the war when food was so scarce in Monrovia that women had to swim across the river to the more lush area and swim back with food for their family on their heads. But the lush areas were where the rebels hid and, more often than not, the women were raped before they were able to return. People knew this…but they also knew that men would be killed if they went, so the women went instead. These stories prompted one passenger to ask others if they were still with the women they had been with during the war. “Oh, yes,” they said - that sort of thing is a stronger bond than any band (wedding ring), they replied.

Our driver, it turns out, had worked with the TRC, or Truth & Reconciliation Commission, collecting stories from war survivors. According to our driver, those who participated in the peace talks in Ghana that ended the war in Liberia (read: mostly warlords that committed war crimes) decided that a TRC a superior option to prosecutions to hold those who committed war crimes responsible (shocking, eh?). As we made our way over some paved and many unpaved roads, he pointed out sites of several massacres and, as we crossed a bridge, explained how people’s bodies had been severed from their heads and allowed to drop into the river while the heads were displayed along the entry to the bridge. Cutting out human hearts to display on the bridge was not uncommon either. One of the worst stories I heard today was about a woman whom rebel soldiers hung upside down and stuffed her “lily” with hot pepper “until it was full.” She survived and reported what had been done to her to the TRC. With stories like this, one has to wonder what horrible scars people have both on their bodies and in their hearts after what happened here. But that violent past is simply reality - mid-sentence about other incidents of torture, one passenger broke off to point out the window and tell me, “That’s how we make palm wine here.”

Eventually, our conversation turned to how the war crimes had come to pass. How can people do such heinous, heinous things to each other? The consensus in the truck was that those fighting had no training in any semblance of rules of engagement and, once armed, they solved old grudges with gunfire. Without commanders who took responsibility for the actions of their subordinates or punished those who wronged civilians, fighting spun out of control until you had fighters who would readily shoot a civilian for the nice shirt on their back. Add to the equation the copious amounts of drugs most fighters were taking throughout the war and you have a recipe for the disaster Mama Liberia experienced. When asked about the source of the drugs, no one knew for sure but said, matter-of-factly, that drugs always follow fighting. If only distribution of useful medications were so efficient.

Talk turned to Taylor, Sr., who one passenger called a “gruna man,” or crook. Another agreed, saying Taylor was “a wicked, wicked man,” who tried to control every aspect of his country, usurping democratic channels and using brute force to terrorize his citizens. And yet he still has supporters in this country who, based on the conversation today, liked what Taylor did for their personal finances so much they overlook what happened to the people during the wars. The idea of the man who campaigned with “He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him” as a slogan returning to power boggles the mind. But the consensus seems to be that people are increasingly accepting that he will not return - and neither will the terror that occurred during his administration.

I recognize that those of you who work in human rights are accustomed to all that I’ve written here, while those of you who don‘t might appreciate ending on a more uplifting note - so I’ll mention that I had the opportunity to meet a man today who is over 100 years old! He remembers figures in Liberian history from, well, nearly 100 years ago. And when one person with our group tried to translate points of historical reference into American terms, saying, “He would be like your JFK,” another dismissed him saying, “No, no, that would be 1963, this is more like the Taft era.” Wow. The knowledge of American history far outside of the US never ceases to amaze me. I’m also attaching some pictures to give you a sense of the beautiful sights around this area of the country.

~Piper

Check back in regularly for updates from Piper as she's in the field. Also - be sure to mark your calendars for November 30th at 4pm, when Piper will host a conference call to talk about her trip to Liberia and the upcoming trial against Chuckie Taylor. Be sure to post any questions you have for Piper in advance!

HRUSA Blogs from Liberia, Day 5: Market Madness, Electricity, and School Children

I had to hit pause on a very productive day when, with a whir and a sigh,

the generator at the Carter Center took its afternoon break. One would think

I might know the generator schedule after several days of being here, but it

seems I’ve been out and about with clients and not in need of electricity

during those times. So making copies of finalized applications for Monday

morning will have to wait for a 30-minute window early tomorrow morning

before we head out of Monrovia.

In the meantime, I’ll update you, our dear readers, with some news from

Monrovia. Speaking of - I’m attaching a picture of “The Daily Talk” - a

large blackboard that is covered with handwritten headlines of the

every-other-day-or-so. Unfortunately, today it was not yet open when we went

by, but the picture gives you a sense of the news stand in place near JFK

Hospital. We drove past on our way outside of town to meet several clients

in the market and ohmigoodness, I don’t know that I can adequately describe

the energy there. Vendors were packed in areas side-by-side or about on foot

toting their wares - from fresh water, to sunglasses, to potato greens, to

towels, to lapas, to anything under the sun - and buyers mixed in along with

cars crawling along as tightly packed as the people but moving more slowly.

(See picture of large truck trying to navigate the market.) Driving here is

a riot. (See picture of some of the roads outside of Monrovia.) Horns are

used to say “watch out, I’m passing on your left,” and “watch out, I’m

backing up,” and “Nope, I’m going first you need to wait” and often just

“Hello, person I know.” Emergency flashers are used to avoid an emergency -

put those on when the person in front of you is waiting to turn left across

solid traffic to let the person behind you know to take your brake lights

seriously. There are tons of taxis - both because no reliable bus system is

in place for those needing to travel significant distances into downtown and

because many people injured by the war cannot do more strenuous work. The

taxis often have messages painted on the back ranging from the religious

(“God is good”) to the practical (“Keep me Clean”), but my all time favorite

was clever or mistakenly ironic but either way hilarious: “NO MSTAKE.”

(sic.)

I’m happy to report that the “snap!” at the end of my Liberian handshake has

shown great improvement and my fist bump, well, that’s so basic it doesn‘t

need practice. Which is a good thing as it seems no small child here can

leave a fist bump unrequited. Put a hand up with the flats of your fingers

and knuckles out steady and even the shiest child is sure to reach a tiny

fist up in response. The bump and my digital camera have won me some small

friends here. While kids are initially skeptical of a foreigner hopping out

of a large 4x4, bring out a camera and show them how to zooooom and voila!

they are enchanted - and enchanting. (See picture some school children took

of others after a quick “press this button” lesson.) My understanding is

that most children do go to school - and you see plenty of uniforms

(Adventist school shirts are bright pink) to attest to that. But school is

very expensive for some parents so some may not be able to attend

consistently. Those in school learn more than English lessons in the

classroom - NGOs like “Right to Play” teach kids valuable cooperation skills

through outdoor playtime. Driving through the outskirts of Monrovia today,

it was fun to see large groups of school kids enjoying playtime. Seeing

them, I wondered how many were old enough to remember when no one would go

out of doors for fear of being hit by a stray bullet and what Liberia will

become as this new generation grows up.

~Piper

Check back in regularly for updates from Piper as she's in the field. Also - be sure to mark your calendars for November 30th at 4pm, when Piper will host a conference call to talk about her trip to Liberia and the upcoming trial against Chuckie Taylor. Be sure to post any questions you have for Piper in advance!

HRUSA Blogs from Liberia, Day 3: Opinions, Copyright, and Oil Rice in Monrovia.

We continued making good progress on the case today and arrangements for travel in December. I’ll be meeting with more clients tomorrow and continuing to gather documentation from facilities in Monrovia. I can focus more on that progress in a later blog - for now, I’d like to answer some of the questions I’ve received about impressions of the country here and about the food. While I can speak from (limited) personal experience as to the latter, I’ll simply share the opinions of others who have been here longer on the former.

There’s something fun about an expat community where everyone shares a bond of coming from another country and exploring the same new one. Similar to the quote about learning another language to truly understand your own, I think it is when you see life in another country that you begin to understand your own…. And, at the same time, you may see things in a new country that those who were raised there don’t. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many people who live here or visit regularly - including a fun family of missionaries, Embassy employees, NGO employees, visiting doctors and academics. (I'll share interesting things I've learned from locals in a later blog.) And, not surprisingly I suppose, there are as many opinions as people. Many note marked improvement since 2006, when President Sirleaf took office. Some look at particular issues and say the administration isn’t doing enough. For example, some lament the relative lack of programs for child soldiers, while others argue resources are too limited and the child soldiers who survived shouldn’t get the resources that could go to the next generation of children who need to be in school. Schools, by the way, are not free in Monrovia and, if you can believe it, children can be turned away despite paying tuition if they don’t arrive in the proper uniform, down to the right shoes. (Ok, I must interject my own opinion here: While I see a benefit in requiring clean, respectful clothing, I have a hard time thinking about children being denied the opportunity to learn for not having the right shoes in a country where some have none at all.) Some here say that while many “talk the talk” of a religious life, they don’t live the teachings of their respective churches, which others collaborate from a more secular perspective saying that no one cares about the person next to them. Some see consistent, gradual progress while others lament the amount of money that is siphoned out of the reconstruction process by corruption and greed. Many question what will happen surrounding the 2011 presidential elections - will Sirleaf run again? Will the football star who lost last time have enough sway this time with young voters? (Which makes a huge difference in a country where around half of the population is under 18.) Will peace continue to grow or will some event be the catalyst for more fighting? Right now most have questions and not answers, but the vast majority of those with whom I’ve spoken have hope for a stable, peaceful country .

And on the legal side of things, here’s an interesting read about the status of the laws in Liberia - in short, determining the relevant laws damages is not as easy as finding good search terms on Westlaw. Word on the street is that President Sirleaf would like to address this issue but already has a considerable amount on her plate. Some would like to see the laws widely distributed, such that Banks has to either accept their distribution or bring suit - and have this matter settled once and for all.

On a happier note, there are groups that are generously furthering the availability of legal texts (and books in general) in Liberia. For example, Books for Africa has provided an entire “law module” to the law school here. In a country without publishing houses, bringing in books is critical. I encourage any law students reading this to consider an alternative to selling back those horribly large texts for a few cents on the dollar. Fore more info, click here. (You can mail domestically via media mail to Minnesota.)

Lastly, to answer questions about food: We made great progress on the case today and, to celebrate, “R” and I had a proper lunch (which was around $5 USD) - where I learned another Liberian expression. I’d ordered fufu, a dumpling-type bread made from cassava and was excited to try it. (see: - I’ll note that my peanut soup had a more generous serving of meat and fish) But then the server returned and said, “Fufu finish.” There was a pause for me to process this - I hadn’t finished my fufu, since I hadn’t gotten it yet…and then I realized, finish = out. They were out of fufu! Sigh. I had the peanut soup and rice instead which was spicy and delicious - and happily I have several other days to try some fufu. Rice is a common part of meals here and, when served without a soup, is called “dry rice.” As opposed to “oil rice” which, with a Liberian accent, sounds a bit like “allright.” So when someone asks you how you are doing (“how da body?”), they might ask if you are “dry rice or oil rice.” I’m looking forward to asking my clients tomorrow if they dry rice or oil rice.

More on legal progress, culinary adventures and other matters tomorrow…Hope you readers are all oil rice!

Check back in regularly for updates from Piper as she's in the field. Also - be sure to mark your calendars for November 30th at 4pm, when Piper will host a conference call to talk about her trip to Liberia and the upcoming trial against Chuckie Taylor. Be sure to post any questions you have for Piper in advance!

HRUSA Blogs from Liberia: An Introduction

In just a few days, Human Rights USA International Justice Project Director Piper Hendricks will arrive in Monrovia, Liberia, to gather information needed for our civil proceeding in the United States. This trip is the culmination of years of work with survivors of abuses inflicted by Charles Taylor Jr., a U.S. citizen, and his subordinates.

While in Liberia, Piper will meet with our Liberian clients who survived atrocities during the Liberian civil wars, which took place between 1989 and 2003. While there, Piper will accompany our clients to their interviews with the U.S. consulate to apply for visas to travel to the United States for the civil trial scheduled in Miami in December.

For these brave survivors and for HRUSA, the trial represents years of work toward accountability under U.S. law, as well as reestablishing justice in Liberia. In 2008, Taylor Jr. was criminally tried and convicted by a Miami jury and is now serving a 97 year sentence. While HRUSA applauds the work of the U.S. Government in convicting Taylor Jr., real justice for his victims does not end there. The civil case is a chance for several survivors to tell truth to justice and gain a sense of closure after facing the man who so gravely wronged them. In addition, the civil case provides an opportunity to obtain monetary damages to remedy their medical expenses and other costs stemming from the torture to which they were subjected.

The preparations for the trip have been extensive, both logistically and legally. Obviously, any journey of thousands of miles is complicated, but in this case, traveling with a goal of obtaining justice has made it more so. In addition to receiving several vaccinations and obtaining a visa, Piper has had to make plans for travel to various parts of Liberia, where roads often make the travel quite long. During her stay, Piper will be working with the clients to get passports and visas, as well as medical records and other evidence to use at trial.

The legal work that HRUSA has done to prepare for the case in the US also has been extensive. Since filing the civil case in January, we have spent the last year drafting various motions, gathering expert information on the long-term effects of torture, and preparing logistically for the challenges of international justice. The work is all worth it because with patience, perseverance and support, this case will provide a sense of closure and justice for survivors, and represent progress for the nation of Liberia.

Please post any questions you might have for Piper as comments to the corresponding blog posts.

After the trip, on November 30th at 4pm EST, HRUSA will host a conference call with Piper to provide you, our supporters, the chance to ask questions about the case and learn more about her trip to Africa. To participate, please contact Brenden Sloan at bsloan [at] humanrightsusa.org or call (202) 296-5702. Piper looks forward to answering your questions. Thank you for your support!

Developments in the Civil Suit Against Chuckie Taylor and Q&A with International Justice Project Director, Piper Hendricks

Charles Taylor Jr. (also known as “Chuckie”) is the son of Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia and was a key instigator in the Liberian Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were injured, tortured, or killed. Taylor Jr. was born and raised in the United States but moved to Liberia in 1997 to live with his father. There, he became the head of a brutal paramilitary group known as the Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU) or the “Demon Forces.” Under Taylor Jr.’s vicious command, many Liberians were subjected to various forms of torture at the hands of the ATU soldiers.

In 2006, when Taylor Jr. entered the United States via the Miami International Airport, U.S. agents were ready and arrested him. The Department of Justice later indicted and prosecuted Taylor Jr. for the acts of torture and conspiracy to torture that he committed in Liberia. Human Rights USA served as amicus (or "friend of the court") and provided expertise on international law. Taylor Jr.'s trial was the first ever in the United States under the “Torture Statute,” a federal law that criminalizes torture and gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over cases involving torture, in keeping with the United States’ obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture. Under the Torture Statute, U.S. courts have jurisdiction over torture committed outside the United States if the offender is a U.S. national or is present in the United States at the time of the arrest, regardless of nationality. On October 20, 2008, a federal jury convicted Taylor Jr. of multiple counts of torture and conspiracy to torture. On January 9, 2009, he was sentenced to 97 years in prison.

Though that trial held Taylor Jr. criminally accountable and provided some remedy to seven of his victims, his serving time in prison does not address all of their losses. In order to hold Taylor Jr. civilly accountable and provide a remedy for medical expenses, lost wages, and other harms inflicted by Taylor Jr. and his subordinates, Human Rights USA is representing five survivors of torture by Taylor Jr. and the ATU in a civil suit. Here, Piper Hendricks, the International Justice Project Director at Human Rights USA answers some questions about the suit and what it means for the enforcement of human rights in U.S. courts:

Q: What is the reason for bringing a civil suit against Charles Taylor Jr. after his conviction and sentencing for multiple counts of torture and conspiracy to torture?

PH: Though the 97-year sentence in the criminal case is essentially a life sentence for Taylor Jr., the civil case allows more victims to have their own “day in court” and gain a better sense of closure. Additionally, unlike the criminal case, the civil case offers the possibility of monetary damages, hence an opportunity to reach Taylor Jr.’s assets and cover medical bills, lost wages, and other serious financial losses the plaintiffs have suffered.

Q: How is a civil suit different from a criminal suit?

PH: Only the government can bring a criminal suit, and such a suit focuses on a conviction and prison time, not damages. A civil suit such as this one is useful in ensuring that wrongs towards specific victims are recognized and reprimanded, and that damages are awarded to those victims.

Q: How is HR USA working with Taylor Jr.’s victims in Liberia on this case?

PH: Currently, HR USA is in close contact with the Liberian plaintiffs by phone, and in the coming weeks, we will be traveling to Liberia to meet with the plaintiffs and arrange for their travel to the United States as we prepare for the civil trial.

Q: Have there been similar situations in the past when civil suits were brought against torturers to ensure justice for victims?

PH: Yes. Because of the Alien Tort Claims Act (also known as the Alien Tort Statute or ATS), which was adopted in 1789, U.S. federal courts can be used as venues to sue for wrong-doing, even if such acts occurred outside the United States and the plaintiff and/or defendant are not U.S. citizens. The ATS has been used to hold accountable a former Filipino dictator and a Peruvian military general, among others.

In 1992, Congress added the Torture Victims Prevention Act to the ATS to allow U.S. citizens also to bring suit in federal courts for torture and extrajudicial killings against those who were acting in official positions (“under color of law”) when those acts were committed.

Q: What would be the ideal outcome of this civil suit?

PH: The good news is we already have a positive outcome in the criminal trial and we have won on the merits (by default judgment) in the civil suit. Now, the ideal outcome of the civil trial – which will focus only on damages - would be for the judge to recognize the grievous nature of the crimes that occurred and award damages accordingly, and thus reimburse our clients for their medical costs and lost earnings and allow them to resume their lives in Liberia.

Human Rights USA encourages you to continue to check our blog and website for more updates as the civil case progresses and we hold our trial on damages in December!

JOIN US FOR: Due to High Demand, A Second Screening of Pray the Devil Back to Hell

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 7 p.m. at the Wooly Mammoth Theater

641 D Street, NW.

Following the film will be a panel discussion moderated by Piper Hendricks, International Justice Project Director, Human Rights USA, with additional panelists to be announced.

Pray the Devil Back to Hell is the gripping account of a group of brave and visionary women who demanded peace for Liberia, a nation torn to shreds by a decades-old civil war. A small band of Liberian women who came together in the midst of a bloody civil war, took on the violent warlords and corrupt Charles Taylor regime, and won a long-awaited peace for their shattered country in 2003. The women's historic yet unsung achievement finds voice in a narrative that intersperses contemporary interviews, archival images, and scenes of present-day Liberia together to recount the experiences and memories of the women who were instrumental in bringing lasting peace to their country. They are living proof that moral courage and non-violent resistance can succeed, even where the best efforts of traditional diplomacy have failed.

This special film screening is being put on in collaboration with the Woolly Mammoth Theater, who are set to launch their new critically acclaimed play, Eclipsed, later this month. The Woolly Mammoth's website offers a brief description of the play:

"The captive wives of a Liberian rebel officer form a hardscrabble sisterhood, their lives set on a nightmarish detour by civil war. With the arrival of a new girl who can read – and the return of an old one who can kill – their possibilities are quickly transformed. Drawing on reserves of wit and compassion, these defiant survivors ask: when the fog of battle lifts, could a different destiny emerge?"

The screening and panel are FREE, but reservations are encouraged at screening@woollymammoth.net as space is limited.

We hope you can join us!

I SEE WHAT? A Discussion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and a quick look at the International Criminal Court (ICC)

In recent postings, we have discussed the International Criminal Court (ICC), both in the context of the United States' opposition to the Court and of Attorney General Holder's pending decision regarding the appointment of an independent prosecutor. In response, some of our readers have asked about the difference between the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). From a city where there seem to be more acronyms than people (especially in August), we bring you a discussion of these two courts...

In October 1943, in the midst of a devastating world war, several States spoke out for the creation of a mechanism capable of ensuring the peaceful settlement of State disputes. The United States was among the leaders of this movement and, together with China, the USSR, and the United Kingdom, issued a declaration urging the prompt establishment of “a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality” to maintain “international peace and security.” To that end, in 1945, a committee of jurists, chaired by American judge G. H. Hackworth, began to draft the statute of what would become the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Many Americans are accustomed to attitudes of national isolationism or exceptionalism, but a look at our not-so-distant history reveals we once took a very different approach to international issues. There was indeed a time when the United States was progressive in its view of international law; in fact, the United States was once a vanguard for ensuring international accountability and the building and strengthening of international institutions.

Sadly, not quite forty years later, in 1984, the United States withdrew itself from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ – a court it helped create. (“Compulsory jurisdiction” means that if a dispute involving the US was submitted to the Court, the United States would be required to subject itself to the Court's authority.) In 2005, the United States terminated its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty that specifically named the ICJ as the venue for settling such cases.

This blog takes a look at the nature of the ICJ, the United States’ history with the Court, and the implications of our shifting stance with this international body.

What is the International Court of Justice?

The ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations (U.N.) and has been functioning in this capacity since 1946. The authority to establish the Court is found in Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter on the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, which lists judicial settlement as one of the means suggested to peacefully resolve disagreements between States. [1] (In other words, make complaints, not war.) The Court is only concerned with resolving matters between governments; individuals or other private entities cannot file cases with the ICJ. A “contentious case” before the Court may look like this: Two coast countries, State A and neighboring State B, cannot agree about where to mark the border of the continental shelf (the shallow landmass that extends into the sea), so bring the case before the ICJ to resolve.

Notably, the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes between states exists only on the basis of consent, which means that each State makes the decision regarding the extent to which it will submit to the Court’s authority. Nearly 70 States (or 1/3 of U.N. Member States) recognize the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, which, as mentioned above, allows that State to initiate proceedings with the Court, but also requires that State to appear before the Court should proceedings be initiated against it by one or more other States.

States that have not agreed to compulsory jurisdiction can still come before the Court in two ways 1) as signatories to a treaty that specifically names the ICJ as the venue to settle disputes, (approximately 300 treaties refer to the Court in settling disputes); and 2) on a case-by-case basis. Finally, as a court of “dual jurisdiction,” the ICJ not only has the authority to decide contentious cases between States, but may also provide advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the U.N. or other specialized agencies.

So why did we need the ICC?

As you may recall from an earlier post, in 2002, the international community established the International Criminal Court – a venue to prosecute individuals responsible for the gravest violations of international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Unlike the ICJ, which handles disputes between States, the ICC handles cases against individuals and offers recourse to the victims of their heinous crimes. The ICC addressed a significant gap in international accountability by allowing individual victims to assert their human rights, often against leaders of their own State. While the ICC has successfully ended impunity for some of the most serious human rights abuses in recent history, its effectiveness has been weakened by the United States’ refusal to become a party.

The United States and the ICJ

As a founding member of the ICJ, the United States accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1946. In the next thirty-eight years, the United States was a party to ten cases, in which the Court facilitated the peaceful resolution of disputes, as well as clarified Treaty obligations and principles of international law. However, in 1984, in a dispute between Nicaragua and the United States, the Court held that the United States had violated obligations under the United States-Nicaragua Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty by supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.[2] In response to this judgment, the United States withdrew from the case and terminated its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.[3] This defiant response to the Court and international community in the mid-80s set the United States on the path to exceptionalism.

At that time, the United States still accepted jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis and as a party to Treaties naming the ICJ as the venue to settle disputes. However, in 1999, another unfavorable judgment planted the seed of complete separation. Under the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, any alleged violation of the Convention would be resolved by the ICJ. The Protocol requires signatories to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, and allows the Court to “make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad.”

In 1999, under the auspices of the Convention, Germany sought to halt the imminent execution of Walter LaGrand, a German national being held in the US. In response, the ICJ issued a provisional measure calling on the United States to ensure LaGrand’s death sentence was not carried out, but LaGrand was executed the same day. Two years later, Germany asserted that the United States had 1) violated its legal obligation under the Vienna Convention to give consular officers access to imprisoned nationals; and 2) failed to comply with the ICJ’s provisional measure.

The ICJ found in Germany’s favor, ruling: 1) the United States violated the Convention by not informing the German consulate of the imprisonment and subsequent sentence of LaGrand and his brother (who had been executed for the same crime before Germany made its initial request to the ICJ in 1999); and 2) the provisional measure of the ICJ was binding on the U.S. government. Three years later, after a similar case in which the ICJ ordered the United States to review the convictions of 51 Mexicans who had been sentenced to death without being informed of their right to consular assistance, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol. Any guesses who proposed the Protocol in 1963? The United States.

Conclusion

Last March, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the ICJ’s aforementioned “order to review” regarding the 51 Mexicans sentenced to death in the case Medellin v. Texas. In 2004, President Bush had cooperated with this ruling and ordered trial revisions. However, most courts, including a court in Texas that had sentenced convicted murderer Jose Ernesto Medellin, did not comply with Bush’s instruction. In reviewing the lower court’s “disobedience,” the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas and held that “neither (the ICJ) nor the president’s memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations.” [4]

The implications of the landmark Medellin judgment are felt far beyond the enforceability of Consular Treaties, and further erode the United States’ international reputation. A State’s refusal to respect its decisions compromises the ICJ’s ability to function effectively as a forum for peaceful resolution on the international stage. Sixty years ago, the United States was proudly at the center of that stage. Unfortunately, much has changed in a few decades. While most States throughout the world recognize the value and legitimacy of international law, U.S. indifference (at best) and hostility (at worst) to the ICJ and similar international institutions threatens to undermine the very system the United States helped create.

By Nadia Ben-Youssef, Legal Intern, International Justice Project

[1] U.N. Charter. Chapter VI (Art. 33).

[2] Nicaragua v. United States, 1984 I.C.J.Rep. 169 (Order of May 10).

[3] Morrison, Fred L. (January 1987). "Legal Issues in the Nicaragua Opinion”, 81 Am. J. Int'l L. 160, 162.

[4] See Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 1353 (2008).