Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Resigns

Early this morning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation.

This time last year, Human Rights USA (in coalition with TASSC) called for the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales and other high level U.S. government officials for promoting the use of torture as an interrogation tactic.

In support of this request, we wrote: "Gonzales ... issued a January 25, 2002, memorandum to President Bush urging the Bush administration to declare captives exempt from the protections of the Geneva Conventions in order to pre-empt war crimes charges and justify the denial of rights and more extreme forms of interrogation. This memorandum provided a presumed legal basis for the abuses in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, and, through General Miller's advice and actions, in Iraq. Memorandum from Alberto R. Gonzales, “Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” January 25, 2002."

For a copy of our Request for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor, click here.

Photo credit: AP/Susan Walsh
MB

U.S. Court Upholds Indictment of Alleged Liberian Torturer Chuckie Taylor, Orders Case to Move Forward

In a victory for torture survivors, the Southern District Court of Florida today upheld the December 2006 indictment against Chuckie Taylor for torture and conspiracy to commit torture. Relying in part on the amicus brief submitted by Human Rights USA on behalf of multiple human rights organizations, the court rejected the defendant’s claims that the criminal prosecution of torturers constitutes a violation of the U.S. Constitution and an improper intrusion on foreign sovereignty. The court denied Taylor’s motion to dismiss and ordered the criminal case against him to move forward.

This decision confirms the long-standing notion that every nation that has ratified the Convention Against Torture – including the United States – is responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal sanctions against torturers, wherever they may be found, and irrespective of where the acts of torture took place.

Chuckie Taylor is the son of former Liberian president Charles Taylor, who is himself currently facing charges of torture, unlawful killings, forced labor, abductions, use of child soldiers, and physical and sexual violence before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. After Charles Taylor, Sr. became President of Liberia in 1997, his son, Chuckie went to work for him as the head of the Liberian Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU).

The criminal charges filed against Chuckie stem from incidents that took place in 2002, while Chuckie headed the ATU. The specific incidents giving rise to acts of torture include “repeatedly burning the victim's flesh with a hot iron, burning various parts of his body with scalding water, including forcing the victim to hold scalding water in his hands at gunpoint, repeatedly electrically shocking the victim's genitalia and other body parts, and rubbing salt into the victim's wounds.”

This case represents the first time that U.S. prosecutors have sought to hold an individual criminally liable for torture. Taylor was indicted under the Torture Convention Implementation Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A), a 1994 federal statute making it a federal crime to commit, or attempt to commit, torture outside of the United States. Under the TCIA, individuals may be prosecuted if they are either U.S. citizens, or if they are found within the United States, regardless of their nationality. Having been born in the United States, Chuckie’s U.S. citizenship renders him subject to liability under the Act. Taylor was initially captured and detained in Miami in March 2006 for passport fraud.

If found guilty, Chuckie Taylor could be imprisoned for up to 20 years, fined, or both. The maximum sentences allowable under the are a life sentence, or the death penalty when an act of torture results in death.

Nigerian Woman Fleeing Forced Marriage Granted Asylum

I-E-, a young woman who fled Nigeria after her father sold her in marriage to a polygamous village leader, was granted asylum by the San Francisco Asylum Office early this year. Human Rights USA served as co-counsel in the case, and prepared briefs demonstrating her eligibility for asylum.

This substantial legal victory laid a foundation for Human Rights USA's continued efforts over the past calendar year to secure asylum and refugee protection for women and girls fleeing forced marriage and other forms of sexual slavery including sex trafficking. We are involved in forced marriage and trafficking cases pending at all levels of the federal court system, and continue working to identify new test cases on these issues.

Special thanks and congratulations to the attorney-of-record, Miriam Porter, who sought our assistance with this case. Our best wishes go to I-E-, who according to Ms. Porter hopes to work as an advocate for other women facing gender-based violence when she completes her education.

MB/MS

Major lawsuit filed by Human Rights USA against Yahoo! highlights the internet company's complicity in human rights abuses in China

Yahoo! is quickly learning that the cost of doing business in China is not free. Unfortunately, this lesson is already all too familiar to Chinese citizens like Wang Xiaoning who, thanks to the complicity between Yahoo! and the Chinese government, face increasing threats to their rights to free speech and association, not to mention other fundamental human rights such as the right to freedom from torture.

On April 18th, Wang Xiaoning filed suit against Yahoo! Inc. and its subsidiaries for their role in aiding and abetting torture abuses against Chinese journalists and human rights advocates in China. In 2002, Wang was arbitrarily detained and subsequently arrested by Chinese authorities for having written and published articles advocating for democracy and a multiparty system in China. His arrest was made only after Yahoo!’s Chinese subsidiary handed over Wang’s identification to the government. By turning over identifying information of its customers, Yahoo! is enabling acts of torture, forced labor, and arbitrary and prolonged detention to occur. As a result, Wang Xiaoning and others like him now sit in prison for having done nothing more than exercise their free speech rights.

Above, Wang's wife, Yu Ling, holds a copy of the Chinese court's judgment against her husband, which cites Yahoo's complicity in sharing with Chinese authorities Wang's anonymous e-mail information. Wang is now serving a 10-year sentence for having expressed pro-democratic views via his Yahoo! e-mail account and Yahoo! Groups, and has suffered abuse and torture at the hands of Chinese officials during his imprisonment.

The Chinese government, as a condition of allowing foreign internet companies to access its market by hosting internet servers in China, requires that foreign companies agree to turn over identifying information of internet users, block access to certain websites, and prevent internet users from being able to search certain words, like “freedom.” The identification information turned over by internet companies is used by the Chinese government, as it was in Wang Xiaoning’s case, to repress individuals who advocate for democratic reforms and greater human rights protections in China by subjecting them to arbitrary arrest, long-term imprisonment, and torture.

In 2005 – three years after Wang’s arrest – Yahoo! Inc. partnered its Chinese subsidiary, Yahoo! China, with the Chinese internet company Alibaba.com, and granted Alibaba the right to use its brand name. This move represents Yahoo’s attempt to gain access to the up-and-coming internet market in China, while trying to shield itself from liability for violating international human rights standards by distancing itself from China’s operations. Yet Yahoo! retains substantial organizational control over its China subsidiaries. By disregarding the rights of their Chinese customers, Yahoo! only facilitates the Chinese government’s repressive practices.

The American public has become increasingly perturbed by the negative social impact that U.S. enterprise can have on individuals in other countries. Perhaps the most notable example of the public outcry against corporate involvement in human rights abuses is the U.S. House of Representatives hearing in 2006, in which Yahoo! and several other U.S. internet companies were brought before the House to explain their complicity with the Chinese government’s censorship policies. Congressman Tom Lantos likened Yahoo!’s actions to the corporations that contributed to the atrocities of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

The lawsuit against Yahoo! and its subsidiaries by Wang Xiaoning and his wife, Yu Ling, underscores the dire need for U.S. corporations to put human rights and international law first in all of their business dealings, especially when operating in countries like China that commit torture and other major human rights abuses on a systemic basis.

With increasing attention being given to the business practices of U.S. companies, this lawsuit ought to convince other U.S. companies to think twice before doing business with the Chinese government, especially when ‘doing business’ means placing people at peril of their lives. U.S. companies would do well to remember that corporate profit does not justify human rights abuses.

Download the complaint here.

Laura Sydell's interview with Yu Ling on NPR is available here.
Bo Hill's interview with Morton Sklar on Radio Australia is available here.

Additional reporting available at:

AP
CBS 5 (Sunnyvale, CA)
The Independent (UK)
Jurist Paper Chase
LA Times
NBC 11 (San Francisco)
NY Times
Reuters
San Francisco Chronicle
Washington Post
Yahoo! News

CC

Punishment fit for a . . . terrorist?

David Hicks - painted by the Bush administration as a terrorist guilty of conspiracy, attempted murder, and aiding the enemy - was today sentenced to nine months in prison for "material support of terrorism."

A sentence of nine months is a far cry from the original 20 years sought by the prosecution. Such a discrepancy, not only in the length of the prison sentence, but also in the prosecution's dropped charges, demonstrates the increasingly-tenuous grip that the government has over its prosecution of alleged terrorists. That, coupled with the fact that only 10 of the 385 detainees have actually been charged with a crime in the five years they have been detained, only underscores the dubious allegations made by the government.

When the government's smoke and mirrors game is revealed for what it is - political grandstanding, at best - it becomes clear that the administration's old and dry tactic of using inflated rhetoric is losing its oomph.

Justice and the Rule of Law

The Bush administration's Department of Justice seems to have lost track of one of the key policies of law enforcement agencies in the United States - observance of the rule of law. That capacity is one of several indicators of effective human rights observance that the U.S. Department of State applies to other nations when they publish their annual Country Reports on Human Rights. But we seem to have conveniently forgotten to apply that same standard to ourselves.

In recent months - and years - the prevalance of instances where our Justice Department has failed to live up to traditional rule of law standards has reversed dramatically. The firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys for not pursuing political agendas pressed by the Bush White House is only the latest example. Before that, we saw the politically dictated compromise in the prosecution of Big Tobacco.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Justice Department, under the Bush administration, has become politically compromised, no longer making law enforcement decisions for reasons of justice and accountability, but rather for politically-motivated dictates.

The Justice Department, also, was intimately involved in a lot of rule of law violations associated with trying to fight terrorism. Justice issued legal memos supporting the use of torture, justifying the policy of rendition to torture and the use of secret prisons, and suggesting that the Geneva Conventions should not apply to alleged terrorists. It also urged Congress to elminate habeas corpus for detainees in order to get rid of the numerous lawsuits that had been filed, some of which resulted in Supreme Court decisions in which the administration was rebuked for its policies.

How can we credibly and effectively encourage other nations to observe and respect the rule of law if we do not do so ourselves? If our government is serious about making observance of the rule of law a key indicator of whether the principles of democracy and human rights are being carried out, we have to serve as a better model of how this is to be done.

MS