April, 05 2011, 11:02am EDT
Syria: Stop Shooting Protesters
At Least 8 Killed in Douma
WASHINGTON
President Bashar al-Asad should immediately order Syrian security forces to stop using unjustified lethal force against anti-government protesters, Human Rights Watch said today. The government should investigate each shooting, and hold accountable anyone responsible for the unlawful use of force, Human Rights Watch said.
At least eight demonstrators and possibly as many as fifteen were killed on April 1, 2011, when men dressed as civilians opened fire at a largely peaceful anti-government protest in Douma, a suburb of Damascus. Two Douma protesters told Human Rights Watch that they believed the gunmen were from security services because they were standing with their weapons behind the riot police. Some of the protesters threw rocks at the police, but none carried any firearms, the two protesters said. "I saw a man that looked like mukhabarat [security services] use a Rusiye - with my own eyes," one of the protesters told Human Rights Watch. Rusiye, Arabic for Russian, is commonly used in Syria to refer to a Kalashnikov.
"For three weeks, Syria's security forces have been firing on largely peaceful protesters in various parts of Syria," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Instead of investigating those responsible for shootings, Syria's officials try to deflect responsibility by accusing unknown 'armed groups.'"
An unnamed official told the official Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) on April 3 that an unknown "armed group" shot at both protesters and security forces from rooftops. The official did not provide any details about injuries to security forces.
The United Nations Human Rights Council should schedule a special session to address human rights violations in Syria, including the unlawful use of force against demonstrators, Human Rights Watch said.
In Douma, after Friday prayer on April 1, protesters emerged from the Great Mosque and found hundreds of riot police and men dressed in civilian clothes, probably from the security services, waiting for them, two witnesses told Human Rights Watch. "The police and the mukhabarat started beating us and launched teargas canisters to force us to disperse," one of them said. Security services detained many protesters as they emerged from the mosque.
Other groups of Douma protesters gathered in neighboring areas and marched toward the main square. The two protesters who spoke with Human Rights Watch said that the protest was peaceful and people were chanting "salmiyya, salmiyya" ("peaceful, peaceful"). One of them said:
At 300 meters from the square, at the level of the women's prison in Douma, the security forces started firing teargas canisters directly at us, and some of their units would rush forward and try to beat us with sticks. Some of us started throwing rocks at the police.
The protesters said they saw anti-riot police in full gear and behind them men dressed in civilian clothes and armed with Kalashnikov firearms, whom they believe were part of the security services.
After almost an hour of clashes in which security forces fired teargas canisters and beat protesters, some of the men in civilian clothes opened fire, the two protesters told Human Rights Watch. One said:
Suddenly, at around 3 p.m., we heard live bullets being shot. I saw one protester die and I started running away and found shelter in the stairwell of a neighboring building. For the next two hours, I heard shots being fired. It sounded like they were firing their Kalashnikovs. At around 5:30 p.m., the situation calmed down.
Under the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, security forces may use lethal force only when strictly necessary to protect life, and force must be exercised with restraint and in proportion to an imminent threat. Protesters throwing rocks cannot justify such deadly force, Human Rights Watch said.
At least eight protesters from the town of Douma were killed and were buried in a large funeral in the town on April 3. They are: Fouad Ben Ahmad Eid Baleleh, 27; Khaled Mahmoud al-Baghdadi, 37; Orfan Abdel Majid al-Durrah, 19; Haydar Ben Ali Izzeldeen, 39; Ibrahim Ben Muhammad al-Mubayyed, 39; Naim Muhammad al-Mukaddem, 33; Yasser Jamal Abu Aisha, 37; Ahmad Ben Abdel Raheem Rajab Fawwaz, 27. According to Syrian human rights activists, seven additional protesters died on April 1 in Douma but were buried outside the town. Human Rights Watch was unable to confirm their deaths independently.
These deaths bring the total number of demonstrators and bystanders killed since anti-government protests began in Syria on March 16 to at least 100, according to lists compiled by Syrian human rights groups.
In a speech on March 30, prior to the events in Douma, President al-Asad set up a committee to investigate the killings of protesters in the cities of Daraa and Latakia. Human Rights Watch urged al-Asad to open independent and transparent investigations into the shootings in Douma and to hold those responsible for any unlawful killings or injuries accountable.
"Syria's judicial authorities need to show that they are independent and able to investigate the responsibility of senior security officials who allegedly sent men with firearms to police the protests," Whitson said.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'
One expert accused the U.S. of working to "undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
Mar 26, 2024
Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.
The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.
Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."
"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."
Watch Matt Lee ask StateSpox about the passing of the UN ceasefire resolution. Basically the US position is it makes no difference and Miller calls 🇷🇺/🇨🇳 veto cynical.
Lee: Do you expect Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?
Miller: I do not
Lee: What’s the point of the UN? pic.twitter.com/FibaSKWjuh
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 25, 2024
Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."
"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.
Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."
While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.
Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister,
wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."
The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.
Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."
In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."
Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including
U.S.-funded flour shipments.
Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."
"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
​State of Emergency Declared After Cargo Ship Destroys Baltimore Bridge
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin said he was "deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore."
Mar 26, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
A state of emergency was declared in Maryland early Tuesday morning after a large cargo ship slammed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore leading to its total collapse and sending a still unverified number of vehicles and people into the Patapsco River.
As the Baltimore Sunreports:
In a Tuesday morning news conference, just a few hours after the incident, Baltimore Fire Department Chief James Wallace said authorities are "still very much in an active search and rescue posture" noting they are searching for "upwards of seven individuals" and that sonar has detected the presence of vehicles in the water. There is no indication that the event was intentional, Wallace said.
"This is a tragedy that you could never imagine … It looked like something out of an action movie," Mayor Brandon Scott said.
The terrifying footage of the bridge's collapse—which CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez commented was "almost unbelievable" to watch—is circulating widely on news channels and social media:
This video is almost unbelievable. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore literally collapsed this morning after it was struck by this large ship. pic.twitter.com/rYuy4U2r7H
— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) March 26, 2024
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday that he had spoken with Mayor Scott and well as Maryland Governor Wes Moore and was helping to coordinate federal assistance.
"Rescue efforts remain underway and drivers in the Baltimore area should follow local responder guidance on detours and response," said Buttigieg.
Moore said in a statement he had declared a state of emergency and that work was underway to "quickly deploy federal resources" to the area.
"We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone's safety," said Moore. "We will remain in close contact with federal, state, and local entities that are carrying out rescue efforts as we continue to assess and respond to this tragedy."
Kevin Cartwright of the Baltimore Fire Department told CNN that the number of missing people may be higher than reported in other outlets. "Unfortunately," said Cartwright, "we understand that there were up to 20 individuals who may be in the Patapsco River right now as well as multiple vehicles."
Early reporting indicated that no crew members aboard the container ship, which sails under a Singapore flag, were injured or missing. A local harbor pilot was also said to be on board at the time of the crash.
"Deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) following the accident. "I'm profoundly thankful to first responders on the scene and will track rescue efforts by local, state, and federal authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grave 'Threat to Journalists' Remains as UK Court Delays Assange Extradition Ruling
"The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all," said the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Mar 26, 2024
The United Kingdom's High Court ruled Tuesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot immediately be extradited to the United States and gave the Biden administration three weeks to provide "assurances" that the publisher's First Amendment rights will be protected and that he won't face the death penalty.
If the U.S. does not provide the requested assurances, Assange will be allowed to pursue a limited appeal of his extradition. Should the U.S. submit assurances by the April 16 deadline, a hearing will be held on May 20 to determine whether they are "satisfactory."
Assange, whose health has deteriorated badly during his five years in a high-security London jail, faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and a possible 175-year prison sentence in the U.S. for publishing classified information—a common journalistic practice. WikiLeaks disclosures exposed grave U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Press freedom and human rights groups say the extradition of Assange to the U.S. would set a dangerous precedent and pose a dire threat to journalism everywhere.
Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement Tuesday that "we are glad Julian Assange is not getting extradited today."
"But this legal battle is far from over, and the threat to journalists and the news media from the Espionage Act charges against Assange remains," said Timm. "Assange's conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the U.S. government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case."
The U.S., which has been aggressively pursuing Assange's extradition for years, previously provided the U.K. government with assurances that Assange would not be held at a supermax prison that's notorious for its inhumane treatment of inmates.
Human rights groups have said such assurances from the U.S. government are "inherently unreliable" and should not be taken seriously by British authorities.
"While the U.S. has allegedly assured the U.K. that it will not violate Assange's rights, we know from past cases that such 'guarantees' are deeply flawed—and the diplomatic assurances so far in the Assange case are riddled with loopholes," noted Simon Crowther, legal adviser at Amnesty International.
"The U.S. must stop its politically motivated prosecution of Assange, which puts Assange and media freedom at risk worldwide," Crowther said Tuesday. "In trying to imprison him, the U.S. is sending an unambiguous warning to publishers and journalists everywhere that they too could be targeted and that it is not safe for them to receive and publish classified material—even if doing so is in the public interest."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, echoed that message, saying in a statement that "prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom, because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organizations often need to do in order to expose wrongdoing by government."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case," said Jaffer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular