July, 22 2010, 04:30pm EDT
Pakistan: End Collective Punishment in Swat
Forced Evictions, House Demolitions Undermine Fight Against Taliban
NEW YORK
The Pakistani government should immediately investigate reports that security forces are carrying out collective punishment against relatives of suspected Taliban militants during operations in the Swat valley, Human Rights Watch said today.
Since September 2009, when the Pakistani military re-established control over the valley, Human Rights Watch has received numerous credible reports of collective punishment, including arbitrary detention, forced evictions, and house demolitions by the military and police. Human Rights Watch has investigated these allegations on the ground in Swat since February 2010, and documented scores of abuses.
"Punishing people because their family members may be militants has become rampant in the Swat valley," said Ali Dayan Hasan, senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Not only is collective punishment illegal, it's counterproductive, because it angers the very people the government hopes to win over."
On May 21, a military-backed tribal jirga (council) expelled about 25 families with 130 people from the Kabal and Matta sub-districts for being relatives of Taliban militants who did not adhere to a May 20 deadline to surrender. The military took the families to a former Afghan refugee camp at Palai, where they remain effectively incarcerated.
Samiullah, one of the expelled family members, told Human Rights Watch: "My brother Rafiullah was a Taliban commander. We left Swat during the operation and returned when it ended. We have not heard from my brother for two and a half years. This camp is heavily guarded like a jail, and it is impossible to enter or leave without the military's permission. What have we done to lose our home?"
Tariq Aalim, a resident of Kabal, told Human Rights Watch that one of his sons had been picked up in place of another son who was an alleged Taliban member. Both he and the son had been arbitrarily detained, and the house of the son who was detained was demolished as a form of reprisal.
"My son Mohammad Aalim was a staunch supporter of the Taliban. I tried very hard to convince him to relinquish his ties with the Taliban, but he ignored me," Aalim said. "When we returned to Swat, the army raided our house on September 9, 2009, and took me and my younger son with them. They told us that they would not let us go until Mohammad Aalim handed himself in. During this period, they beat us mercilessly."
The Aalim family's problems continued even after Mohammad Aalim turned himself over to the authorities: "After 11 days, Mohammad Aalim surrendered to the army and my younger son and I were released the following day. However, the next day, army soldiers came and forcibly evicted us from our house and bulldozed it while we stood there helplessly. My third son returned from Qatar on January 22, 2010. After 13 days, on February 4, the army then took him away. We were told that he would be released in a few days. I begged the army, telling them to kill my son Aalim if his connections to the Taliban were proven, but to release my other son who had done nothing and did not even live in Swat. He is still in custody. He has done nothing and the army will kill him. Why can't they punish the guilty instead of destroying our home and torturing all of us because they have a problem with one member of the family?"
Mohammad Ikram, resident of Mingora, told Human Rights Watch that his youngest son, Imran, had joined the Taliban, and the army had been looking for him. Unable to find him, the military arrested Ikram and his other son, Naeem, in place of the wanted man. Though Ikram was released after three months, Naeem remains in illegal detention.
"My youngest son, Imran, joined the Taliban and also took part in militancy," Ikram said. "We tried our best to convince Imran to relinquish his ties with the Taliban but to no avail. Imran informed the Taliban that we were putting pressure on him to leave, and a Taliban commander visited our home and threatened us with dire consequences if we asked Imran to desert again. This was in March 2009, and we have not seen Imran since and have no information about whether he is alive or dead."
Ikram described his and Naeem's arrests: "In late August, army officials started visiting our house every two or three days to ask about Imran. Around August 27, they gave us an ultimatum to hand Imran over within a week or they would demolish our house and take us away with them. On September 4, some army officials came to our home and took my son Naeem and me with them. They told the women that they would hold us until Imran was handed over. They released me after three months, but Naeem is still in the custody of the army in Dargai. They say that they know Naeem is innocent but will only release him when they discover the whereabouts of Imran. We pray that the army finds Imran or his dead body so that Naeem can be released."
Collective punishment is any form of punitive sanctions and harassment, including but not limited to judicial penalties, imposed on families or other targeted groups for actions that they themselves did not personally commit, Human Rights Watch said. It is contrary to basic principles of international human rights and humanitarian law, which provide that no person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. This covers sanctions or harassment of any sort, administrative, by police action, or otherwise.
Human Rights Watch reiterated its call to the United States, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan's other military allies to urge Pakistani authorities to end gross violations of human rights in the Swat valley and to hold accountable all personnel, regardless of rank, responsible for them.
"With collective punishment, the Pakistani military risks undermining its hard-earned successes in Swat and dragging down the US and other allies who turn a blind eye to such practices," Hasan said. "Pakistan and its allies should demonstrate their resolve to fight the Taliban in accordance with international law instead of by intimidating civilians."
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
'Flawed and Dangerous': US Appeals Panel Upholds Potential TikTok Ban
"This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans' access to information, ideas, and media from abroad."
Dec 06, 2024
First Amendment advocates on Friday criticized a U.S. appellate court for upholding a law that would ban TikTok in the United States if its Chinese parent company does not swiftly sell the social media platform used by an estimated 170 million Americans.
Signed by President Joe Biden in April, the law gives ByteDance until January 19 to divest from TikTok. Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the parts of the law considered by the panel "do not contravene the First Amendment" nor other parts of the Constitution of the United States.
"The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States. Here the government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary's ability to gather data on people in the United States," Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in an opinion the company is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Responding to the decision on social media Friday, Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said that "the D.C. Circuit's decision today to uphold the TikTok ban is enormously disappointing. If allowed to stand, it would give the government far too much power to restrict Americans' speech online."
Jameel Jaffer, who was on a friend-of-the-court brief as director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, issued a similar warning after the ruling was released.
"This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans' access to information, ideas, and media from abroad," he said. "I hope the D.C. Circuit's ruling won't be the last word—and I doubt it will be."
Kate Ruane, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Free Expression Project, also looked ahead to the next court fight.
"The D.C. Circuit decision upholding the TikTok ban will immeasurably harm the free expression of hundreds of millions of TikTok users in the U.S. and globally who use the app to create, to share information, to get their news, and promote their businesses," she said in a statement. "We hope the next phase of review of this misguided and overbroad law will be a chance to right this wrong and prevent it from going into effect."
In addition to arguing the law is unconstitutional, attorneys for TikTok and ByteDance "have claimed it's impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically,"
The Associated Pressreported. "They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm—the platform's secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan—would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content."
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office one day after the law's divestment deadline, previously supported banning the platform, but during the latest campaign, he pledged to try to "save TikTok." According toThe Washington Post:
Trump is expected to try to halt the TikTok ban, people familiar with his views on the matter told The Washington Post in early November, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Alan Rozenshtein, a former national security adviser to the Justice Department, said Trump could take any of three actions to help TikTok fend off the ban: persuading Congress to repeal the law, directing his new attorney general not to enforce it, and declaring that ByteDance has satisfied the statute by performing a "qualified divestiture" of TikTok.
Although the president-elect hasn't yet weighed in on the new court decision, on Thursday he shared on his Truth Social platform a post-election overview of how his campaign performed on TikTok.
While Trump may move to preserve TikTok in the United States, civil rights attorney and Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo noted that the court decision's "terrible precedent" is also a concern as he returns to office.
"This will be a test of the U.S.'s ability to shut down access to websites they dislike," Caraballo stressed. "Really bad to do with Trump in office! We could enter a new era of government censorship."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Brutal Murder of Insurance CEO Sparks Wave of Dark Humor, Including Fictionalized Denial of Coverage Letter
"You don't have to sanction murder to see why so many Americans detest health insurance corporations who prioritize profit goals by routinely creating arbitrary reasons to deny patient needs," said one labor movement voice.
Dec 06, 2024
The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside of a Manhattan hotel Wednesday has sparked a wave of dark humor and fresh fury at the for-profit U.S. healthcare system.
The barbs at UnitedHealthcare—the country's largest private insurer—included a mock denial of coverage letter posted to the subreddit r/nursing in a thread on Thompson’s murder.
"We regret to inform you that your request for coverage has been denied," the letter reads. "Our records indicate that you failed to obtain prior authorization before seeking care for the gunshot wound to your chest." The Daily Beastreported a spoof rejection letter was also posted to a since closed thread on r/medicine.
Police are in their third day searching for Thompson's killer, who shot the healthcare executive multiple times in front of a Hilton hotel in Midtown before fleeing the scene. The New York Police Department has released an image that shows a man authorities deem "a person of interest wanted for questioning" in connection to the Wednesday killing, perCNN. The image was captured at a hostel in Manhattan, according to CNN, citing law enforcement.
The words "deny," "defend," and "depose" were found written on the ammunition used by the gunman, three words that partially echo the title of the book "Delay, Deny, Defend," which details how the insurance industry avoids paying claims.
In addition to dark humor, reactions to Thompson's assassination have brought to the fore the public's downright rage at the health insurance industry.
In the comment section of Common Dreams' coverage of the murder, one commenter wrote: "I guess if you steal people's labor and deny them healthcare in order to line your own pockets, you might occasionally expect retaliation." Another wrote: "For profit health care is unethical and immoral."
"Thoughts and deductibles to the family," read one comment below a video of the shooting posted by CNN, according to The New York Times. "Unfortunately my condolences are out-of-network."
One woman whose mother with stage four breast cancer was forced to battle insurance to get new treatments approved toldNew York magazine that she experienced "a little surge of Schadenfreude," when she heard of Thompson's death.
"UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson was just 50 years old at the time of his murder, which is a lot more tragic when you know that his life expectancy as a member of the Top 1% was 88, or 15 years longer than the life expectancy of the average American male," wrote journalist and editor Moe Tkacik on X. Later, in a piece for The American Prospect, Tkacik framed the situation like this: "Only about 50 million customers of America’s reigning medical monopoly might have a motive to exact revenge upon the UnitedHealthcare CEO."
Others said that the reaction to the murder was an indication that the Democratic party ought to embrace economic populism and end their close association with corporate power.
"The mass reaction to the healthcare CEO’s murder is a reminder that there is a constant deadly class war being waged against working class Americans. If Dems ditched their billionaires and fully joined the side of the working class in that struggle they would easily win FDR style majorities," said the political commentator Krystal Ball.
Charles Idelson, former communications strategist for National Nurses United, said that "you don’t have to sanction murder to see why so many Americans detest health insurance corporations who prioritize profit goals by routinely creating arbitrary reasons to deny patient needs."
"It's not unique to UnitedHealth," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Agency Trump and Musk Want to 'Delete' Set to Deliver $1.8 Billion to Scammed US Consumers
"When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is allowed to fully do its job, Americans only stand to benefit."
Dec 06, 2024
In the coming weeks, as President-elect Donald Trump's second term approaches and his pledge to dismantle key agencies potentially comes closer to fruition, 4.3 million consumers are set to receive checks from one of the agencies the incoming administration wants to "delete."
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced Thursday that it will soon begin distributing a historic $1.8 billion to millions of people who were charged illegal junk fees or defrauded by credit repair companies including Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com.
The money will be distributed from the CFPB's victim relief fund, which was created by Congress and is financed entirely by civil penalties paid by companies and individuals who violate consumer financial protection laws.
The fund has distributed $3.3 billion to consumers since its inception, and the CFPB said the forthcoming payment will be its largest ever.
"Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com exploited vulnerable consumers who were trying to rebuild their credit, charging them illegal junk fees for results they hadn't delivered," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "This historic distribution of $1.8 billion demonstrates the CFPB's commitment to making consumers whole."
A district court ruled in August 2023 that the two companies had violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule's prohibition on advance fees, which bars credit repair firms from collecting fees from consumers until they prove they have achieved the results they promise to their customers.
If the CFPB payments are divided equally among those who were wrongly charged fees by the two companies, each consumer would receive about $419.
The payments are being sent days after the CFPB proposed a rule aimed at reining in data brokers who sell people's personal information.
As Common Dreamsreported, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has expressed concern about the practices of data brokers—but as Trump's nominee to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a yet-to-be-created commission that would cut regulations and government spending, Musk has pledged to "delete" the CFPB.
Filmmaker and media activist Danny Ledonne said Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, another businessman nominated to lead DOGE, likely want to do away with the CFPB because the agency acts "in the interest of regular people."
Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at government watchdog Accountable.US, said the upcoming $1.8 billion payout shows why the CFPB should remain in operation.
"When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is allowed to fully do its job, Americans only stand to benefit," said Zelnick. "Between surprise fees and misleading business practices, today's victory affirms the importance of the CFPB for defending people across the country from shady industry actors."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said supporters of consumer protections in Congress will "fight any attempts to dismantle [CFPB], whether from Trump, Musk, or their billionaire buddies."
"The CFPB fights for everyday Americans against corporate greed, junk fees, and predatory lenders," he said. "This watchdog agency protects normal people like you and me."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular