Own all US news! » Armed Conflict

Sentence reduced for US conscientious objector

aron — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:32:01 +0000

Amnesty International has welcomed the US military authorities' reduction of a prison sentence being served by a US army sergeant, who refused to serve in Afghanistan because of his religious beliefs as a Christian.

At his court martial on 14 August 2009, Travis Bishop was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for going absent without leave, suspension of two-thirds of his salary and a bad conduct discharge.

Lt General Robert Cone, commanding general of Fort Hood in Texas, approved the sentence reduction on 4 February after considering Travis Bishop's clemency application. His lawyer estimates that he should now be released in late March, taking his good behaviour into account.

Travis Bishop has asked his lawyer to relay this message to the many people who have written letters of support, "Thank you! Thank you! Thank you to everyone who wrote letters and supported me! This is amazing and unprecedented."

Following Travis Bishop's sentencing, the prison's military authorities received hundreds of letters appealing for his release. His lawyer has personally thanked Amnesty International members "for all of your help on this case. I think the letters may have made the difference. It is extremely rare to get this much time reduced from a sentence".

Travis Bishop has served in the US army since 2004. He was deployed to Iraq from August 2006 to October 2007. According to his lawyer, he had doubts about taking part in military action since then, but it was only in February 2009, when his unit was ordered to deploy to Afghanistan, that he considered refusing to go.

In the period before he was due to be deployed, Travis Bishop’s religious convictions became stronger, and led him to conclude that he could no longer participate in any war.

Travis Bishop's sentence was imposed even though the US army was still considering his application for conscientious objector status.

In a statement made at the court-martial, Travis Bishop explained that he discovered he could apply for this status only days before his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan. He went absent without leave on the day of his deployment to give himself "time to prepare for my [conscientious objector] application process".

He was away from his unit for about a week, during which he drafted his application and sought legal advice. He returned voluntarily, and on his return to the unit he submitted his application.

Amnesty International considers Travis Bishop to be a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned solely for his conscientious objection to participate in war.

The organization has recognized as prisoners of conscience a number of US soldiers refusing to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan because of their conscientious objection.

They include Camilo Mejía, who was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for his objection to the armed conflict in Iraq in 2004, and Abdullah Webster, who refused to participate in the same war due to his religious beliefs and was sentenced the same year to 14 months’ imprisonment.

Another, Kevin Benderman, was sentenced in 2005 to 15 months imprisonment after he refused to redeploy to Iraq because of abuses he allegedly witnessed there.

Agustin Aguayo was sentenced in 2007 to eight months' imprisonment for his refusal to participate in the armed conflict in Iraq. All four have since been released.

Some of these conscientious objectors have been court-martialled and sentenced despite pending applications for conscientious objector status; others were imprisoned after their applications were turned down on the basis that they were objecting to particular wars rather than to war in general.

Афганистан не должны оставить безнаказанными военные преступники

aron — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:56:20 +0000

Amnesty International has called on Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan Parliament to immediately suspend controversial legislation that will give immunity from prosecution for serious violations of human rights, including war crimes and crimes against humanity committed, in the past 30 years.

The legislation, the "National Stability and Reconciliation" bill, was passed by both houses of the Afghan Parliament in early 2007 and published in the official Gazette in November 2008 but, unusually, it was not publicly divulged until January 2010.

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, including the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), believe that this law is an attempt to provide legal cover for ongoing impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations, including the Taleban.

"The backers of this 'Impunity Bill' should note that they cannot simply legislate away the history of gross human rights violations and war crimes committed in Afghanistan over the past three decades. Nor can they silence the consistent demands of the Afghan people for justice and accountability," said Sam Zarifi, director of Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific programme.

"There are real doubts about the legal validity of this 'Impunity Bill', as no national legislation can immunize perpetrators of international crimes. Furthermore, President Karzai never signed this bill, and it was only divulged to the public almost two years after Parliament voted on it."

Under this legislation, people who committed serious human rights violations and violations of the laws of war, including massacres, widespread enforced disappearances, and systematic use of torture, rape, public executions and other forms of ill-treatment would be immune to criminal prosecution if they pledge cooperation with the Afghan government.

"The record of the past eight years has been crystal clear: attempts to accommodate human rights abusers have only led to a deterioration of security and an erosion of the government's legitimacy. Many of the people facing accusations of human rights abuses in the past are now in prominent government posts, facing new charges of engaging in human rights violations," Sam Zarifi said.

Under the provisions of this legislation, Taleban figures who agree to cooperate with the Afghan government would also be immune to prosecution. The Afghan government and its international supporters identified reconciliation with the Taleban as a priority during the London conference in January 2010.

"Short term expediency in the form of reconciliation with the Taleban should not trump the rights of the Afghan people, and in particular Afghan women and girls, who have suffered greatly under the Taleban’s repressive strictures. The Taleban have had a record of terrible human rights abuses, both when they ruled Afghanistan, and now in the areas they control. They should be held to account for their actions, not be granted official impunity," Sam Zarifi said.

"The Afghan people have time and again signalled that they want a government that protects and provides their human rights and that imposes the rule of law. This legislation is simply an effort to pervert the course of justice under the faulty guise of providing security."

Пан Ги Мун 'упускает возможности "на Газу отчетности

aron — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:47:32 +0000

The UN Secretary-General has "missed an opportunity" by failing to make an assessment of the credibility of Israeli and Palestinian investigations into violations during the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel just over a year ago, Amnesty International said on Friday.

"This is deeply disappointing and a missed opportunity to help secure accountability for the conflict’s hundreds of victims," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

Ban Ki-moon indicated on Thursday that “no determination can be made” on whether either the Israelis or Palestinians are complying with a UN General Assembly resolution of November 2009 that urged both sides to carry out investigations “that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards”.

It requested the Secretary-General to report within three months on their implementation, “with a view to considering further action”. The resolution was based on the Goldstone Report, which accused both sides of war crimes.

The Secretary-General explained his lack of action by the fact that “processes initiated” by the Israeli and Palestinian authorities were “ongoing”.

However, Amnesty International believes that the information he had received was sufficient to show that steps being taken by both sides were clearly inadequate and that this message should have been conveyed to them in the report.

Amnesty International urges the UN Secretary-General to remedy the situation by immediately preparing an independent assessment of the steps being taken by Israel and the Palestinian side to address accountability and requesting input from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other independent experts in international humanitarian and human rights law. Amnesty International wrote to Ban Ki-moon on 20 November 2009 with a similar recommendation.

Such an assessment should be made available to the General Assembly and the Security Council in the coming months and provide a solid basis for decisions on further action that are necessary to secure accountability for both sides. This may include an eventual referral of the situation in Gaza by the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court.

Amnesty International’s assessment is that the responses presented to the UN Secretary-General by Israel and Palestinian representatives demonstrate that neither side has taken the necessary steps to conduct investigations “that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards”.

The organization has described the response of the Israeli authorities as “totally inadequate”, since investigations undertaken by them to date have failed to meet “international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness” (see Amnesty International’s press release of 2 February 2010: www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/latest-israeli-response-gaza-investi...).

The official Palestinian response to Ban Ki-moon was submitted by the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the UN and conveyed a letter from Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The letter indicates that an investigative commission has recently been established but that investigations have yet to be carried out into specific allegations of violations of international law committed during the conflict.

Documents made public this week by the Ministry of Justice of the Hamas de facto administration in Gaza, by way of a response to the General Assembly’s call for investigations, provide no evidence of investigations which comply with international standards and focus on either denying the allegations of abuses committed by Palestinian armed groups or providing justifications for those violations.