January, 23 2009, 10:37am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sharon Singh, Amnesty International, 202.544.0200x302;
Jennifer Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights: +1.212.614.6449;
Julia Hall, Human Rights Watch: +1.716.884.0001; (mobile) +1.716.432.0140;
Antoine Madelin, FIDH: +32.(0)2.609.4422;
Cori Crider, Reprieve: +44.(0)207.353.4640; (mobile) +44.7962.890.575
Human Rights Groups Urge Europe to Help Close Guantanamo
Offer Humanitarian Protection to Detainees Who Risk Torture or Persecution at Home, Urges Rights Coalition
BRUSSELS
A coalition of human rights organizations today called on E.U. foreign ministers meeting in Brussels next week to help close the Guantanamo Bay prison by offering humanitarian protection to detainees who risk torture or persecution at home.
The attached letter to the ministers attending the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on Jan. 26, 2009, is signed by Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, La Federation internationale des ligues droits de l'Homme (FIDH), and Reprieve.
The Obama administration will need the help of European governments to implement any plan to close the prison camp.
Of the 250 detainees still at Guantanamo nearly seven years after the prison camp opened, approximately 60 men could face torture or persecution if returned to their home countries, and at least one is stateless. The United States may decide to admit some of the men to the U.S. mainland, but the remaining detainees need humanitarian protection in other countries where they will be safe.
"Amnesty International hopes that as a result of this meeting E.U. member states will send a common message on their willingness to help close Guantanamo, and - most important - follow it up with concrete action to find homes for detainees who cannot be returned to their countries of origin," said Nicolas Beger, director of Amnesty International's European Union office.
Emi MacLean, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said: "There is a real opportunity for the new U.S. administration to turn a new leaf, close down Guantanamo Bay and end, once and for all, the appalling era of illegal detentions and human rights abuses. This can only be achieved if E.U. countries step up and offer protection for those men who still languish in Guantanamo simply because there is nowhere safe for them to return."
Julia Hall, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, said: "Offering safe haven to some of the most vulnerable detainees would be a significant humanitarian gesture. Europe could help the new administration shut down the unlawful detention facility, a major goal, and be a force in re-establishing the rule of law."
Souhayr Belhassen, president of La Federation internationale des ligues droits de l'Homme (FIDH), said: "Every day adds a toll to the already dire humanitarian nature of the situation. No time should be wasted in releasing these individuals."
Cori Crider, staff attorney with Reprieve, said: "Many of the detainees are marked by seven years of illegal detention and now cannot go home. A 'homecoming' for them stands to be a tragedy, as it has already been for some of Reprieve's clients. The assistance of European governments can prevent this from happening and we hope that Europe will reach out to these men."
text of letter:
22 January 2009
Dear Foreign Ministers:
As members of an international coalition of non-governmental organizations advocating for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, we are writing in advance of the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) to be convened in Brussels on 26 January 2009.
We understand that the question of how the European Union can help the United States meet its goal of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be on the meeting agenda, and respectfully request that EU member states agree to provide humanitarian protection to Guantanamo detainees who could be at risk of torture or persecution in their home countries, or who are stateless.
We recognize that the United States has created the problem of Guantanamo, and therefore carries the primary responsibility for closing it. President Barack Obama has committed unequivocally to closing the facility, and has demonstrated his willingness to act swiftly on the matter, seeking a suspension to military commission proceedings as one of his first acts as President. We will continue to press the new administration to adopt and implement a plan for its closure in accordance with the US's human rights obligations.
President Obama and the United States will need the help of European governments to implement this plan.
Of the 250 detainees still being held at Guantanamo nearly seven years after the opening of the detention facility, approximately 60 detainees could face torture or persecution if returned to their home countries, and at least one is stateless. Those men expressing fears of torture or persecution come from Algeria, Azerbaijan, China, Libya, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Russia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia and Uzbekistan.
These detainees include a group of Chinese Uighurs that the United States had cleared for release years ago, yet continue to be detained at Guantanamo because there is nowhere for them to go. In October 2008, a US federal court ordered the government to release the Uighurs and admit them to the US mainland because the government had failed to secure places for the men in safe third countries. Although the Bush administration appealed the ruling, and the Uighurs remain detained at Guantanamo, our organizations remain optimistic that the federal court order will be upheld. The United States should likewise offer any other detainees who cannot be returned safely to their own countries the opportunity to be admitted into the United States
Release into the United States, however, may not be a practical solution for all of the detainees who cannot be returned home. The stigma attached to these men because of the rhetoric from US authorities creates a real concern that any detainee released in the United States may be subjected to constant harassment and suspicion.
The long history of action by European governments on behalf of human rights and international protection for vulnerable persons makes it ideally situated to provide safe places for vulnerable Guantanamo Bay detainees who have nowhere else to go.
A significant number of EU member states have well-developed infrastructures to assess the men's needs and provide support, integration, and rehabilitation services to former detainees. Our organizations have long commended the EU's stated commitment to the full rehabilitation of victims of torture and other ill-treatment. Member states' expert social and medical programs make many EU countries particularly well-placed to offer the vital support that some former detainees may require.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, long a partner with the EU and other European countries in the project to offer international protection in Europe to persons who fear persecution, could also provide expertise on the integration and rehabilitation of the former detainees. Most EU member states have significant government services to provide support for recipients of international protection, as well as excellent networks of migrants, human rights, and other civil society organizations to assist with integration and rehabilitation.
Many EU member states have rightly called on the US government to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. In recognition that some detainees fear torture or persecution at home or have no place to go, EU member states should now offer them refuge and support. In the past year, a number of internationally recognized experts and bodies have called Europe to action on the issue of offering refuge to vulnerable Guantanamo Bay detainees, among them the UN special rapporteur on torture, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, the EU counterterrorism coordinator, various committees and members of the European Parliament, and representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In recent weeks, government officials from a number of EU states--including Germany, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom--have taken the important step of agreeing in principle to accept some detainees and offer them refuge on their territories or publicly calling on EU member states to offer such safe haven.
These efforts indicate a growing and welcome acknowledgement that European assistance is needed to achieve the goal of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, along with the recognition that European governments should demonstrate the political will to deal with challenges that may arise with respect to receiving and integrating these men.
Now is the time for European states to take a humane and practical step to help right a terrible wrong. Such a decision would be applauded by the human rights community.
Our organizations sincerely believe that the willingness of European governments to offer humanitarian protection to Guantanamo detainees who cannot be returned home is critical to any successful "close Guantanamo" plan, and we will do everything we can to assist you in this endeavor.
With best wishes for a productive meeting,
LATEST 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