The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.
Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.
In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Addressing the conference, which was organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a second UN rapporteur, Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism, announced he would be prioritising inquiries into drone strikes.
The London-based barrister said the issue was moving rapidly up the international agenda after China and Russia this week jointly issued a statement at the UN Human Rights Council, backed by other countries, condemning drone attacks.
If the US or any other states responsible for attacks outside recognised war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing, Emmerson emphasised, then "the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body".
Also present was Pakistan's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal action to halt the "totally counterproductive attacks" by the US in his country.
Heyns, a South African law professor, told the meeting: "Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since world war two and survived nuclear threats?"
Some states, he added, "find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognised as being an armed conflict."
If it is true, he said, that "there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime".
Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on al-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. "It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001," he said. "Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.
"The targeting is often operated by intelligence agencies which fall outside the scope of accountability. The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often."
Heyns told the Guardian later that his future inquiries are likely to include the question of whether other countries, such as the UK, share intelligence with the US that could be used for selecting individuals as targets. A legal case has already been lodged in London over the UK's alleged role in the deaths of British citizens and others as a consequence of US drone strikes in Pakistan.
Emmerson said that protection of the right to life required countries to establish independent inquiries into each drone killing. "That needs to be applied in the context of targeted killings," he said. "It's possible for a state to establish an independent ombudsman to inquire into every attack and there needs to be a report to justify [the killing]."
Alternatively, he said, it was "for the UN itself to consider establishing an investigatory body. Drones attacks by the US raise fundamental questions which are a direct consequence of my mandate… If they don't [investigate] themselves, we will do it for them."
It is time, he added, to end the "conspiracy of silence" over drone attacks and "shine the light of independent investigation" into the process. The attacks, he noted, were not only on those who had been killed but on the system of "international law itself".
The Pakistani ambassador declared that more than a thousand civilians had been killed in his country by US drone strikes. "We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the war against terror. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them," he said.
Claims made by the US about the accuracy of drone strikes were "totally incorrect", he added. Victims who had tried to bring compensation claims through the Pakistani courts had been blocked by US refusals to respond to legal actions.
The US has defended drone attacks as self-defence against al-Qaida and has refused to allow judicial scrutiny of the UAV programme. On Wednesday, the Obama administration issued a fresh rebuff through the US courts to an ACLU request for information about targeting policies. Such details, it insisted, must remain "classified".
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project, said: "Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in US courtrooms, according to the government. Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction."
The ACLU estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians. The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Obama became president.
The USA is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or many other international legal forums where legal action might be started. It is, however, part of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where cases can be initiated by one state against another.
Ian Seiderman, director of the International Commission of Jurists, told the conference that "immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law".
One of the latest UAV developments that concerns human rights groups is the way in which attacks, they allege, have moved towards targeting groups based on perceived patterns of behaviour that look suspicious from aerial surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific al-Qaida activists.
In response to a report by Heyns to the UN Human Rights Council this week, the US put out a statement in Geneva saying there was "unequivocal US commitment to conducting such operations with extraordinary care and in accordance with all applicable law, including the law of war".
It added that there was "continuing commitment to greater transparency and a sincere effort to address some of the important questions that have been raised".
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Gamecocks beat Kent State, Play again tonight - msnbc.com
Michael Roth pitched a two-hitter and two-time defending national champion South Carolina eliminated Kent State from the College World Series with a 4-1 victory on Thursday.
The game had been postponed by rain Wednesday. The Gamecocks (47-18) play again Thursday night against Arkansas. They need two wins over the Razorbacks to advance to the championship round that starts Sunday. Grayson Greiner and Chase Vergason hit consecutive RBI singles in the second inning to erase Kent State's 1-0 lead. LB Dantzler homered in the third against Tyler Skulina (11-2). Kent State (47-20) finished 1-2 in its first CWS appearance. Roth (9-1) struck out eight and walked none. He retired 22 in a row after giving up Sawyer Polen's RBI single in the second inning.
Source: www.msnbc.msn.com
New La. law: Sex offenders must list status on Facebook, other social media - CNN
(CNN) -- A new Louisiana law requires sex offenders and child predators to state their criminal status on their Facebook or other social networking page, with the law's author saying the bill is the first of its kind in the nation.
State Rep. Jeff Thompson, a Republican from Bossier City, Louisiana, says his new law, effective August 1, will stand up to constitutional challenge because it expands sex offender registration requirements, common in many states, to include a disclosure on the convicted criminal's social networking sites as well.
Thompson, an attorney and a father of a 13-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son, said he hopes other states will follow Louisiana.
Social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have been removing sex offenders from their web pages for years, but Thompson said the law is designed to cover any possible lapses by social networking sites.
"I don't want to leave in the hands of social network or Facebook administrators, 'Gee, I hope someone is telling the truth,'" Thompson said Tuesday. "This is another tool for prosecutors."
The new law, signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal earlier this month, builds upon existing sex offender registration laws, in which the offender must notify immediate neighbors and a school district of his or her residency near them, Thompson said.
The law states that sex offenders and child predators "shall include in his profile for the networking website an indication that he is a sex offender or child predator and shall include notice of the crime for which he was convicted, the jurisdiction of conviction, a description of his physical characteristics... and his residential address."
Several states now require sex offenders and child predators to register with authorities their e-mail accounts, Internet addresses or profile names to social network and other web sites, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A few states such as Illinois and Texas even outright prohibit sex offenders, as a condition of parole, from accessing social networking websites, the group said.
The Louisiana law is the latest addition to statutes requiring public notice and registrations by sex offenders, Thompson said.
"It provides the same notice to persons in whose home you are injecting yourself via the Internet," Thompson said. "I challenge you today to walk down the street to see how many people and children are checking Pinterest, Instagram and other social networking sites. If you look at how common it is, that's 24 hour a day, seven days a week for somebody to interact with your children and your grandchildren."
At least according to Facebook's policies, the law would have no real impact. The site's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities already bars sex offenders from using it.
"You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender," the policy reads, in a section that also prohibits children under 13 and multiple accounts on the site.
In the past, Facebook has worked with various states on legislation to help law enforcement find, prosecute and convict sexual predators attempting to use the site.
Violators of the new law could face imprisonment with hard labor for a term between two and 10 years without parole and a fine up to $1,000. A second conviction carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment with hard labor for a term between five and 20 years without parole and a fine up to $3,000.
Thompson consulted prosecutors and the attorney general in Louisiana when drafting the law because last year, a federal court struck down a Louisiana law that outright banned sex offenders and child predators from using Internet. The court found the law too broad, Thompson said.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana sought to block the enforcement of that state law that tried to limit sex offenders' use of the Internet, arguing that it infringes on constitutional rights. The law had targeted registered sex offenders convicted in crimes involving children and prohibited the "using or accessing of social networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks," according to the legislation that was signed into law in June 2011.
Today, sex abuse victims are less alone
Louisiana lawmakers, however, have not given up on that stricter law. In fact, a revised version was passed by the Louisiana legislature and signed into law in May, but Thompson is skeptical that latest version can survive a court challenge. The revised, new ban prohibits certain registered sex offenders from intentionally using a social networking website, Gov. Jindal said in a statement.
Said Thompson about that new law: "It may very well fall under scrutiny and attack. That's one of the reasons that I created the bill I did. I'm not trying to create a ban. I'm just trying to create an expansion of the existing notice requirements."
Source: www.cnn.com
Kent lose out to Essex in thrilling style - Kent News
Kent's Sam Billings. Picture by Ady Kerry.
Greg Miles, Twitter: @greg_KOS_sport
Thursday, June 21, 2012
10:59 AM
Last over drama sees Spitfires lose by three runs
Kent looked on course for victory over rivals Essex in the t20 until a collapse of wickets led to a thrilling run chase in the final overs.
Essex hit 158 for 6 in their 20 overs, which wasn’t an unreachable target.
And Jimmy Adams’s side looked on course for victory until the 17th over, when they were 118 for three, but Greg Smith took five wickets in two overs as Kent could only add another 37 runs, falling just four short of victory in the final over.
A six-run penalty against Essex for a slow over-rate moved Kent’s chase closer but with four needed to win off the final ball, Graham Napier bowled last man Mark Davies.
Kent were initially on the backfoot on 23 for two with David Masters taking the wickets of Rob Key, and Azhar Mahmood early on. Sam Billings and Brendan Nash shared a fourth-wicket stand of 54 in seven overs to steady the ship.
But then came Smith’s contribution, first he took Billings for 59, and Nash in successive deliveries. Then Geraint Jones went for one, and Sam Northeast, after two sixes, and Matt Coles were also dismissed.
With Kent needing four runs to win on the final ball Davies was bowled by Napier.
Source: www.kentnews.co.uk
London politicians call for Munich '72 remembrance - Reuters UK
LONDON |
LONDON (Reuters) - London politicians urged the International Olympic Committee to show political courage and allow a minute's silence during the opening or closing ceremonies of the London Games to mark the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre.
Eleven Israeli team members died at the 1972 Olympics in Munich after being held hostage by Palestinian gunmen.
The London Assembly unanimously voted on Wednesday for a motion supporting a minute's silence for the athletes and coaches who died in the attack.
Andrew Dismore, who proposed the motion, said the deaths went beyond politics and nationality.
"The IOC say to have a minute's silence to commemorate these victims of terrorism would be a ‘political gesture', but surely not having a minute's silence is, in itself, the political gesture," he said in a statement.
"This is not about the nationality of the victims - they were Olympians."
Londoners have forked out about 10 percent of the 9.3 billion pound public bill to stage the Games, with the rest coming from central government and the national lottery.
Roger Evans, another lawmaker, who seconded the motion, said: "The IOC needs to show some political courage and allow the commemoration of a tragedy that affected their guests during their event in their venue 40 years ago.
"This important decision should not be dictated by a small number of their members."
The London organising committee (LOCOG), responsible for staging the Games, said it was a matter for the IOC.
The IOC was not immediately available for comment.
(Reporting by Avril Ormsby; Editing by Robert Woodward)
Source: uk.reuters.com
Sign in to leave your comment
0 comments