March, 30 2009, 11:40am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
AIUSA media office,Email:,media@aiusa.org,Phone: 202-544-0200 x302
Three Concrete Steps to Improve Conditions for Afghans
WASHINGTON
As representatives of the international
community gather in The Hague to discuss the deteriorating situation in
Afghanistan, Amnesty International outlined three concrete steps that can
be taken immediately to improve the human rights of the Afghan people.
The organization said that while Washington's
new rhetoric and strategy offer new potential for progress on human rights,
the Afghan people deserve and demand performance, not promises, from their
government and its international supporters--chief among them the United
States.
Amnesty International has long pushed the
international community to adopt benchmarks that focus on the well-being
of the Afghan people, not just short-term military or political goals.
In that light, Amnesty International recommends the following three steps,
all of which can be implemented quickly.
1) Improve the accountability of international
and Afghan military forces
In view of the U.S. government's announcement
of the deployment of up to 30,000 extra troops in Afghanistan, Amnesty
International urges the international military forces to do more to provide
accountability for violations of international humanitarian law and remedy
for civilian casualties of military action, in order to ensure that the
presence of more international troops does not lead to more harm to Afghan
civilians.
There are currently military personnel from
more than 40 countries operating in Afghanistan, most of them under the
mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), provided
by NATO, and a smaller number as part of the counter-terrorism mandate
of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition to regular military
forces in Afghanistan, there are numerous members of civilian intelligence
agencies as well as private contractors and local militias conducting military
operations.
A concerted effort is needed to clarify and
harmonize mandates, rules of engagement and the chains of command of these
forces. All international forces must immediately adopt common rules of
engagement that ensure full compliance with international humanitarian
law, and improve coordination with Afghan national forces to ensure compliance
with these rules.
Amnesty International welcomes the recent
announcement that the ISAF will create a mechanism for investigating civilian
casualties. But it is unclear whether this long-overdue mechanism will
investigate the conduct of forces operating under the U.S.-led Operation
Enduring Freedom. All international and Afghan security forces should develop
and implement a consistent, clear and credible mechanism for receiving
complaints and investigating claims of civilian casualties or injuries
resulting from its military operations. A coherent and systematic program
of assisting those injured by Afghan and NATO/U.S. forces and bringing
to justice those suspected of violations of international humanitarian
law should be developed and communicated to the Afghan people.
2) Improve respect for the rule of law
by international and Afghan authorities
Ordinary Afghans have almost no recourse
to the protection of the law from their own government's abuses, or those
committed by international forces. The international effort to build Afghanistan's
judiciary has been a notable failure of the past seven years. Making up
for this failure will take time. A clear political commitment to judicial
reform and the injection of the necessary resources must be a key priority
for action by the Afghan government and the international community. In
the meantime, several measures can be adopted now to improve respect for
the rule of law. They include:
*The Afghan government should bolster accountability
for its security forces--including misdeeds by the police and persecution
of journalists and human rights defenders--and focus on protecting Afghans,
especially women, who bear the brunt of insecurity throughout the country.
*The U.S. government should immediately grant
all detainees held at the U.S. base in Bagram access to legal counsel,
relatives, doctors, and to consular representatives, without delay and
regularly thereafter, and grant all Bagram detainees access to U.S. courts
to be able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Currently, U.S.
forces continue to detain hundreds of Afghans without clear legal authority
and without adequate legal process.
*International forces should retain responsibility
for the custody of the people they capture, and not hand them over to the
sole control of the Afghan authorities, until they no longer face the current
risks of torture or other ill-treatment, particularly at the hands of the
National Directorate of Security (NDS).
*The Afghan government should prohibit the
NDS from detaining prisoners and allow independent human rights monitoring
of all detainees, including by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission,
with access to all places of detention and all detainees.
*The Afghan government and the international
community should seek mechanisms to ensure fair trials for those in detention,
including the option of mixed tribunals to try those apprehended in counter-insurgency
operations by either Afghan or international forces.
*The Afghan government should immediately
seek international assistance to help implement the 2005 Action Plan for
Peace, Justice and Reconciliation, which foresees the establishment of
"effective and reasonable accountability mechanisms in order to end impunity
in Afghanistan and ensure that there will no amnesty for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and other gross human rights violations".
3) Vet candidates in upcoming elections
to improve the government's legitimacy
With Presidential, parliamentary, and
regional elections scheduled for the next year, it is essential that a
proper vetting process be in place to keep out those who may have been
involved in human rights abuses, especially leaders of armed groups and
militias whose usurpation of the role of elected officials has done much
to erode the Afghan people's trust in their government and its international
supporters.
Since the inauguration of the Afghan National
Assembly in 2004, thousands of complaints about these abuses have been
received by the Complaint's Commission of the Afghan parliament.
However only one member of Parliament has
been suspended - in May 2007, Malalai Joya, an outspoken parliamentarian,
was suspended for raising concerns about the presence in parliament of
figures widely accused of being war criminals and human rights violators.
The Afghan government and its international
supporters should immediately institute a fair and transparent process
to vet candidates who are linked to armed groups and militias and against
whom there have been credible allegations of involvement in human rights
abuses.
Even as the Afghan government and international
forces increasingly discuss the possibility of seeking political compromise
with some members of the Taliban and other insurgent groups notorious for
a long record of human rights abuses, the Afghan people demand to be protected
from a return to the abusive policies of the Taliban and other armed groups.
Each such step would improve the dire human
rights situation in Afghanistan and signal that the interests of the Afghan
people are the focus of their government and the international community.
These steps are not the full answer to the political and economic problems
besetting the Afghan people. But if these steps are taken immediately,
they will give the Afghan people something that is essential and in increasingly
short supply: hope for the future.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular