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
Essex edge to victory at Lord's - Yahoo! Eurosport
Middlesex made a wretched start, losing half their wickets in the first nine overs with just 36 runs on the board. Only Adam Rossington offered any resistance as slow left-armer Tim Phillips, the competition's leading bowler in 2011, removed both openers in his first two overs while Dawid Malan and Neil Dexter also fell to single-figure scores.
Rossington struck out, though, hitting a six and two fours. But, having scored 22, he played down the wrong line to give David Masters a wicket. Gareth Berg included a few rustic swipes amongst more conventional strokeplay but, having reached 39 from 36 balls, he became a third victim for Phillips and a second catch for wicketkeeper James Foster.
However, Steven Crook and Ollie Rayner offered belated hope for the home team as the rain started, with an array of aggressive shots and a stand of 49 in five overs.
At the start of the final over, 18 were needed with three wickets intact but Crook, on 22, then holed out to deep cover off the bowling of Greg Smith while Toby Roland-Jones was run out off the final delivery, leaving the plucky Rayner 39 not out from 21 balls.
Having won the toss, Essex got off to a brisk start with their opening pair of Mark Pettini and James Franklin posting 46 in seven overs before spinner Rayner accounted for both batsmen.But Ryan ten Doeschate took a shine to the bowling of Tom Smith, despatching the slow left-armer for three sixes in two overs.
However, those proved to be the only boundaries for the Holland international, who scored 38 from 27 balls before being pinned in the crease by Dexter.
That was to prove the top score in the Essex innings but it was left to Graham Napier to provide the most entertaining contribution with a cameo 28. Having taken a look at the first delivery, he then blasted 22 off the next five balls with one six and four fours - 19 coming off Dexter.
Edgbaston's rain-blighted season continued with Warwickshire's Friends Life t20 match against Somerset washed out after only 7.1 overs were bowled.
Somerset reached 59 for one in the two brief passages of play that were possible between the showers before the terminal downpour arrived at 8.45pm.
Source: uk.eurosport.yahoo.com
Comedian who uploaded traffic warden picture and insulting comments to Facebook gets official caution from police - Daily Mail
- John O'Sullivan, 37, snapped warden while she was working in Horsham, West Sussex
By Jill Reilly
|
Warned: John O'Sullivan, 37, was given a police caution
A comedian was given a police caution after uploading a picture online of a traffic warden and encouraging people to 'ride her like a horse'.
John O'Sullivan, 37, took a picture of the warden from the back while she was working in Horsham, West Sussex.
He uploaded the picture to a Horsham forum on social networking site Facebook with the caption, ‘I will give 36 to anyone who jumps on her back spanks her and rides her like a horse'.
The picture soon attracted 250 ‘likes’ and many locals started sharing their own experiences with traffic wardens.
But a few days later Facebook took the picture down following a complaint and on May 29 - two weeks after the picture was first uploaded - Mr O’Sullivan was asked to hand himself in at a police station.
He did and was then cautioned under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’.
Although Mr O’Sullivan says he did apologise and regrets his decision to upload the picture the police continued with his caution and he now has a criminal record.
Mr O’Sullivan said: ‘The whole thing is ridiculous.
‘I had a police interview, had my belongings taken from me and was then put in the cells for three hours.
‘I apologised then and I want to apologise now.
‘I was doing what I do and trying to make a joke and it went too far.
Camera: Mr O'Sullivan, took a picture of the warden from the back while she was working in Horsham, West Sussex and uploaded it to Facebook
Mr O'Sullivan said that he wanted to make people laugh, but that it stopped being funny when he received a caution on his record.
‘I wasn’t being venomous. You couldn’t see her face or who it was.
‘I think the moment you put on a uniform you have to come under fire from the public anyway.
‘I am sure she has upset people in her time too.
‘Clearly I don’t actually want someone to ride a traffic warden like a horse, if I wanted to be nasty I would have said something far worse.’
A spokesperson from Sussex Police said: ‘A 37-year-old man from Horsham was cautioned for causing alarm and distress by posting an abusive message online about an individual on 29 May.’
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
Americans Want Health-Law Revisions Rather Than Repeal - Bloomberg
Republicans have pledged to “repeal and replace” President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul. If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the law, they may struggle to deliver on the second part of their vow.
A plurality of Americans, 43 percent, say they want to retain the 2010 law with only small modifications, while 15 percent say the measure should be left alone, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. One-third say it should be repealed.
The court will rule in the next week on the constitutionality of the law, the centerpiece of which is the mandate that most Americans buy insurance or pay a fine.
A rejection of all or part of the Affordable Care Act would be a setback for Obama, undercutting his biggest legislative victory. It would also present a challenge to Republicans. With elections approaching, House Republicans are signaling they have no immediate replacement to offer.
“If you’re out to get more votes in six months, coming forward with a detailed program is not the optimal strategy,” said Henry Aaron, a health-policy scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Republicans have little to gain in proposing a comprehensive plan since it may draw criticism from health-care providers or consumers, he said.
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said on June 19 the House would take a “step-by-step approach” to revamping health care.
Popular Features
A number of the law’s features are popular. Laetitia Adam, a 33-year-old independent voter from Miami, said she supports the insurance mandate as well as the provision allowing children up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ health plans.
“For the most part, I agree with the law as it is,” Adam, a respondent to the June 15-18 poll, said in a follow-up interview. “You can’t afford to get sick without insurance,” said the graphic artist. The law just “needs to be made more simple.”
In a nod to public support for aspects of the law, insurers UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), Aetna Inc. (AET) and Humana Inc. (HUM) said this month they would retain some benefits even if the court strikes down the law, including allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans and offering free preventive care.
Partisan Gulf
The partisan divide over the health-care plan was underscored in 2010, when the legislation passed a then- Democratic-controlled Congress with no Republican votes.
Republican leaders now are mapping out a legislative response to a possible Supreme Court rejection of that law, which is intended to expand coverage to at least 30 million uninsured Americans.
Advisers to Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other party leaders have held meetings in recent weeks to discuss the issue.
“We’re just going through different scenarios,” Republican Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California said earlier this month. “You’ve got to see what the ruling is.”
Representative Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican and a medical doctor, said his party has no major proposal on the drawing board.
“We don’t plan on coming out with an omnibus bill to replace Obamacare,” said Gingrey. “The American people don’t like that,” he said. “We certainly don’t want to try to cram something down their throats.”
Mandate Burden
Almost seven in 10 Republicans say the law should be repealed, according to the Bloomberg poll. Support for keeping it in place with minor changes is shared by 43 percent of independents, 17 percent of Republicans, and 64 percent of Democrats.
Leonard Gosselin, a 58-year-old disabled veteran from Raymond, New Hampshire who gets his health care through the Veterans’ Administration, said he’s opposed to the insurance requirement.
“I feel sorry for the rest of the people” who have to buy insurance, said Gosselin, a Republican. “I don’t like that at all.”
Fifty-eight percent of Americans say the quality of health care they are receiving is about the same as last year at this time, while 18 percent said they are worse off, the Bloomberg poll found. At the same time, 36 percent said they are worse off in what they pay for health care through premiums, co-pays or deductibles than last year -- a seven-percentage point increase from September 2009. Forty-one percent said it’s about the same, and 8 percent said they’re better off.
Supreme Court Politics
One belief unites most Americans: 71 percent say politics will influence the Supreme Court’s decision, with just 20 percent saying the court will decide solely on legal merits. Five justices are Republican appointees, and four are Democrats.
The poll of 1,002 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. It was conducted by Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co.
Another survey, an AP-GfK poll conducted June 14-18, showed that 77 percent of Americans want the president and Congress to start work on a new health-care bill if the Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional. Forty-seven percent said they oppose the 2010 measure and 33 percent expressed support.
To date, no legislation to fully replace the law has come to the House floor, nor does it appear on Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s summer priorities list.
Republicans executed the first half of their “repeal and replace” promise soon after taking control of the House in 2011. They passed a bill to repeal the law on Jan. 19, of that year -- with all 242 Republicans joined by three Democrats. The measure died in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Replacement Plan
The next day, the House adopted a resolution charging four separate committees to hold hearings and move legislation based on a 13-point replacement plan that included a mandate to permanently fix a Medicare-reimbursement rate formula for doctors that frequently comes under review by Congress, increase the number of insured Americans and lower health-care premiums through increased competition and choice.
House Republicans have also voted 30 times to eliminate, defund or scale back parts or all of the health law, most recently approving a measure to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices set to take effect in January.
Aaron, of Brookings, said if the Supreme Court overturns the law, Republicans will be in no rush to come up with their own comprehensive plan on an issue that has damaged two presidencies, including that of Bill Clinton, a Democrat who failed to win congressional support for his 1993 plan to provide universal health care.
“What one is dealing with here are a set of institutions that determine how we’re going to be treated when we’re in our most vulnerable state, how we’re going to be treated when we’re fearful about death,” said Aaron. “It’s a hard problem.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net
Bloomberg National Poll Healthcare
Rod Lamkey Jr/The Washington Times/Landov
Susan Clark, of Santa Monica, Calif., debates her position as the podium used for the Tea Party Patriots rally is wheeled away in front of the Supreme Court during arguments regarding President Obama's health care overhaul.
Susan Clark, of Santa Monica, Calif., debates her position as the podium used for the Tea Party Patriots rally is wheeled away in front of the Supreme Court during arguments regarding President Obama's health care overhaul. Photographer: Rod Lamkey Jr/The Washington Times/Landov
Source: www.bloomberg.com
No comments:
Post a Comment