September, 09 2010, 02:06pm EDT
Afghanistan: Unchecked Violence Threatens Election
Insurgent War Crimes, Weak Government Response; Women Candidates at Risk
NEW YORK
Insurgent attacks on candidates and poor government security protection risk severely compromising Afghanistan's September 18, 2010 parliamentary election, Human Rights Watch said today. Candidates - as well as their staff members and election officials - face assassinations, kidnappings, and intimidation by insurgents as well as by rival candidates. Women candidates are facing the highest level of intimidation.
This is the second parliamentary election since the fall of the Taliban. The first was in 2005. The August 2009 presidential and provincial elections were held amid widespread violence, poor security, and allegations of serious corruption. Candidates, members of parliament, and election officials and monitors have expressed concerns to Human Rights Watch that security problems and corruption may have worsened since then and that the electoral process has not been reformed.
"Taliban attacks and the broad lack of confidence in the Afghan government to conduct a secure election threatens its validity," said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher at Human Right Watch. "Insurgent violence, particularly against women candidates, was inevitable, but the government's weak response was not."
The Taliban have claimed responsibility for killing three parliamentary candidates during the campaign period. On July 23 in Khost, Sayedullah Sayed, a candidate and religious scholar, was killed and 20 others were wounded when the mosque in which he was speaking was bombed. On July 24, the Taliban abducted Najibullah Gulisanti, candidate for Ghazni province, and killed him two weeks later after Taliban demands for a prisoner exchange were rejected. On August 29, gunmen killed another candidate, Haji Abdul Manan Noorzai, while he was walking to a mosque in Herat. While some candidates have complained to Human Rights Watch about the government's lack of provisions for protecting candidates, others have not requested help or turned it down, citing a lack of confidence in the Afghan security forces.
The Taliban and other insurgent groups have also killed and threatened campaign supporters and voters. On July 14 in Logar province, two Taliban insurgents on a motorbike shot dead a shopkeeper who had displayed a poster for a parliamentary candidate in his shop. News reports said that so-called "night letters" were later distributed warning villagers that they would face the same fate if they did as the shopkeeper had done.
In Niazai, Logar province, on July 16, the Taliban killed two brothers who supported a local candidate. Afghan election monitors reported that in Darnota district, Nangarhar province, Taliban have made house visits warning that they will cut off the fingers of people found with voter registration cards.
In early September, a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, told reporters that, "Everyone affiliated with the election is our target - candidates, security forces, campaigners, election workers, voters are all our targets." Under the laws of war, which are applicable in Afghanistan, deliberate attacks on civilians, including government officials not directly taking part in the hostilities, are prohibited. Those ordering or conducting such attacks are responsible for war crimes.
"Attacks on candidates and voters are war crimes," Reid said. "It is sadly telling that the Taliban are willing to kill those who engage in this simple act of personal freedom."
Women candidates face escalating threats from both insurgents and rival candidates. In Herat on August 26, 10 people working for a woman running for parliament, Fauwzia Gilani, were abducted. Five were soon released. The Taliban initially denied responsibility, but later claimed that they had abducted five men. On August 29, five bodies with multiple gunshot wounds were discovered close to the abduction site.
Gilani told Human Rights Watch that she had received threatening phone calls prior to the abductions telling her to withdraw her candidacy, as well as messages after the abductions that if she withdrew her candidacy, her staff would be released. A local security official told Human Rights Watch that it is possible the abduction and killings were carried out by or for rival candidates.
In July, Mawlawi Shahzada, a member of parliament and candidate in the eastern province of Kunar, called a female candidate, Wagma Safi, an "infidel." Shahzada made the dangerous charge to his supporters gathered in Chawki district and said that anyone who votes for Safi would be an infidel. Safi told Human Rights Watch that she was concerned because such categorizations make individuals vulnerable to reprisal by insurgents or even members of their communities.
She filed a complaint with the Electoral Complaints Commission, which has a wide range of sanctions at its disposal, including disqualification of candidates, annulment of results, and referral to relevant criminal authorities for investigation. The Commission fined Shahzada 10,000 Afghanis (just over US$200). Safi said the fine was unlikely to deter further threatening behavior.
A female candidate from the central region who did not want her name or province made public told Human Rights Watch that she had received death threats from two rival candidates and that one of her campaigners had been severely wounded in an assault and told not to campaign again in the area.
In one northern province, letters have been distributed accusing a woman running for a parliamentary seat of being "un-Islamic" and a "prostitute." The letter also says a rival candidate has distributed videos proving the allegations. Questioning the religious faith and sexual propriety of candidates in this way puts candidates at risk and is particularly dangerous for women, Human Rights Watch said.
Under the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law, "[a]busing, humiliating, intimidating," or "harassment or persecution" of women are deemed as "violence against women." In cases where harassment results from the misuse of status or position, perpetrators can be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months.
The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) said that the majority of threats against individual candidates reported to them were against women, including at least 40 incidents of threatening letters or phone calls in 10 provinces. Many of these incidents include threats of violence if the woman does not withdraw her candidacy.
The government has promised to make security personnel available for women running for parliament. But less than two weeks before the election, Human Rights Watch interviews with a number of election monitors, candidates, and women's rights activists suggest that the most women candidates have still not been provided with bodyguards, security advice, or transport security, even if they requested protection. Security was similarly inadequate during the 2009 elections. The Afghan government should rapidly address the security threats to women candidates, Human Rights Watch said.
"It is astonishing, given the threats and attacks, that the government continues to respond so inadequately to the security needs of women running for parliamentary seats," Reid said.
Election authorities have legitimate concerns about the possibility that suicide bombers will wear burqas in an attempt to breach security at polling places, Human Rights Watch said. There have been weeks of discussion among government departments about who has responsibility for ensuring that women will be stationed at the polls to carry out body checks, mirroring the failures in preparation for the 2009 presidential election. Consequently less than two weeks before the election, recruitment of female security staff for these jobs has barely begun, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch has learned of serious allegations of government interference in campaigns in several provinces. One independent candidate said that several cabinet ministers have offered logistical support to "pro-government" candidates. Officials from the Free and Fair Election Foundation and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission told Human Rights Watch of a number of cases in which provincial governors, security chiefs, and senior civil servants have been accused of using government resources to support candidates, sometimes in an intimidating manner. There are also numerous allegations that fraudulent voter registration cards and ballot papers have been produced and traded.
The Interior Ministry and Office of the Attorney General should promptly and transparently respond to threats and attacks against candidates, campaign staff, election monitors, officials, and voters with serious and credible investigations and hold those responsible to account, Human Rights Watch said. Government officials should not automatically blame attacks on the Taliban and other insurgent groups - which commit most, but not all, campaign-related violence - as this allows rival candidates to carry out attacks and threats with impunity, Human Rights Watch said.
The government should take seriously attacks against women candidates, including making the availability of protection widely known, even if some candidates choose not to use it.
The Electoral Complaints Commission should also be prepared to use its strongest sanctions, including disqualification, when there is evidence of serious crimes by candidates, such as statements that put other candidates' lives at risk. The commission should refer instances involving criminal offenses to the Office of the Attorney General.
"In this tense political environment, these elections could have wide-reaching ramifications for Afghanistan's future stability," Reid said. "The government will have to do far more to persuade the Afghan people that it can - and will - guarantee the security and independence of these elections."
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
Progressives Praise New US Guidelines for Government AI Use
"Today, the OMB's guidance takes us one step further down the path of facing a technology-rich future that begins to address its harms," said Maya Wiley.
Mar 28, 2024
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris announced on Thursday a Office of Management and Budget guidance regarding how the federal government will utilize new artificial intelligence tools going forward, and it received praise from some progressives.
The guidance focuses on how federal agencies can benefit from utilizing AI tools but also the risks involved in putting them to use.
"The order directed sweeping action to strengthen AI safety and security, protect Americans' privacy, advance equity and civil rights, stand up for consumers and workers, promote innovation and competition, advance American leadership around the world, and more," says a White House fact sheet.
At the first-ever Global AI Summit last year, I laid out our vision for a future where AI advances the public interest.
To help build that future, I am announcing our first government-wide policy to promote the safe, secure, and responsible use of AI. https://t.co/6NPXLWn8Oc
— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) March 28, 2024
The guidance says all federal agencies will now have a senior leader in charge of the use of AI tools, agencies will have to publicly report how they're using AI, agencies will be required to create "concrete safeguards" to protect the rights of citizens, and more.
Damon T. Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called it "a significant step to implement meaningful safeguards on the government's use of artificial intelligence."
Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said it's necessary to make sure technology "serves us," rather than "harms us," and it should "advance our democracy rather than disrupt it."
"Today, the OMB's guidance takes us one step further down the path of facing a technology-rich future that begins to address its harms," Wiley said. "The guidance puts rights-protecting principles of the White House's historic AI Bill of Rights into practice across agencies, and it is an important step in advancing civil rights protections in AI deployment at federal agencies. It extends existing civil rights protections, helping to bring them into the era of AI."
The Biden administration released an AI Bill of Rights blueprint in 2022, which is an outline for how new AI tools should be utilized and developed to protect consumers. It also secured a voluntary AI safeguard agreement with seven major AI developers in July of last year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Former US Lawmaker Finally Enjoys Social Policies He Fought for—In Europe
"I saw and felt what it's like to live in a community where everyone can go to the doctor. Where children aren't massacred by gun violence. It changes everything."
Mar 28, 2024
A former U.S. lawmaker who spent nearly half a century fighting for a nation that would have universal healthcare coverage and less gun violence is finally living in such a place—but he had to retire and move to Europe to find it.
In recent interviews with Roll Call and The Washington Post, former Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott, who also served in the Washington state Legislature, discussed life in France and the threat of former GOP President Donald Trump, who is set to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November.
"It was like I walked through an invisible door," McDermott told the Post's Elizabeth Becker about going to France. "Now I saw and felt what it's like to live in a community where everyone can go to the doctor. Where children aren't massacred by gun violence. It changes everything."
McDermott visited Civrac-en-Médoc in 2017, the same year he retired from Congress, and quickly bought a stone cottage. The 87-year-old keeps a residence in Seattle and remains an American—he is a member of Democrats Abroad and plans to vote for Biden. However, he largely lives in the rural French village, where he "doesn't need to lock his doors at night" and "loves that kids in the neighborhood don't worry about gun violence," as Roll Call's Ariel Cohen reported Wednesday.
"I spent 16 years in the Washington state Legislature trying to get single-payer healthcare. Then I spent nearly 30 years in Congress trying to get single-payer. Then I came to France and in three months I had single-payer. Was that mind-blowing? You bet."
France—which requires a psychological test for a gun license—has a population of about 68 million and each year sees 3.23 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people, according to World Population Review. The United States, home to over 333 million, has 10.84 gun deaths per 100,000 people and mass shootings are on the rise.
During his decades on Capitol Hill, McDermott, a psychiatrist, supported stricter U.S. gun laws and nationwide universal healthcare. While progressives including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) continue the battle for Medicare for All in Congress, McDermott is experiencing France's full coverage system, which was built over seven decades.
"The system covers most costs for hospital, physician, and long-term care, as well as prescription drugs; patients are responsible for coinsurance, copayments, and balance bills for physician charges that exceed covered fees," according to the Commonwealth Fund. "The insurance system is funded primarily by payroll taxes (paid by employers and employees), a national income tax, and tax levies on certain industries and products."
McDermott told Cohen "I spent 16 years in the Washington state Legislature trying to get single-payer healthcare. Then I spent nearly 30 years in Congress trying to get single-payer. Then I came to France and in three months I had single-payer. Was that mind-blowing? You bet."
As Cohen detailed:
When he arrived in France, he needed to fill a few prescriptions but didn't have a French primary care doctor. The pharmacist looked at his empty pill bottles and refilled them, no questions asked. When McDermott finally got a French physician, he received a brand-new CPAP machine at no cost. A month later, someone came to make sure it was working properly.
"Coming to France is like a drink of cold water," he says. "Once you've had this experience, it's easy to see all the ways in the U.S. you're getting screwed—well, not screwed per se, but definitely overcharged."
McDermott's first electoral win was tied to healthcare—specifically, his support for abortion rights. He was elected to the Washington House of Representatives in November 1970, the same election in which the state's voters legalized abortion, three years before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority—including three Trump appointees—overturned Roe, sparking a fresh wave of forced pregnancy bills across the nation. Meanwhile, the French Parliament earlier this month enshired abortion rights in France's constitution.
"The whole country stood up and said, 'Up your ass, we're not going your way, America,'" McDermott said of the French vote. "People have realized America is not the place you want to be on everything."
While U.S. legislators in over 20 states have imposed new restrictions on reproductive healthcare since the fall of Roe, Trump—who's now signaling his support for Christian nationalism by hawking $60 patriotic-themed Bibles—and many congressional Republicans are pushing for a 15-week federal abortion ban and various other far-right policies.
From France, Becker noted, McDermott keeps tabs on U.S. politics, conversing with friends and politicians, sending money to campaigns, and warning people against a Trump win in November.
According to the former war correspondent:
In private conversations with McDermott, they wonder how to gauge the seriousness of Trump's increasingly dire threats to the country's democratic underpinnings and, potentially, to them and their families. "I get calls from my friends now who say they are scared to do what I did but are scared to stay."
He tells them: "If you can afford it, buy a second home in France, or Spain, or Portugal, wherever… a second home that could become a safe house."
Still, McDermott has some hope for his home country's future, telling Cohen: "I still vote, I still got my house in Seattle. Just because I don't live there doesn't mean I've given up on the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down 4 'Unconstitutional' Voting Laws Passed by GOP
The laws disproportionately impacted the ability of Native people to participate in voting, the court noted.
Mar 28, 2024
Native rights groups were among those applauding a decision by the Montana Supreme Court late Wednesday as four voting restrictions, passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in the wake of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, were struck down as "unconstitutional."
The sweeping 2021 laws had ended same-day voter registration, eliminated the use of student ID cards as a form of identification for voters, banned the distribution of absentee ballots to teenagers who would turn 18 by Election Day, and prohibited third parties from collecting ballots and returning them on behalf of voters.
Indigenous rights groups and tribes including Native Voice, Montana Native Vote, the Blackfeet Nation, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a lawsuit in 2021 to challenge H.B. 176 and H.B. 530, the two laws pertaining to same-day registration and ballot collection.
Chief Justice Mike McGrath noted that Native people were disproportionately affected by the two laws, writing that it is "much more difficult on average for people living on reservations to either get to a polling place on or before Election Day, or to mail an absentee ballot prior to election day."
The summary of the majority opinion said the laws "violate the fundamental right to vote provided to all citizens by the Montana Constitution."
The court upheld a district court ruling from 2022.
"Today's Montana Supreme Court decision is a great victory for our clients and all Native Americans in Montana, who have asked for nothing more than the ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney at the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Once again, courts have struck down the Montana Legislature's attempts to unconstitutionally burden the constitutional rights of Native Americans across the state. We will continue to fight for Native American voters in Montana and across the country to preserve their fundamental, constitutional right to vote."
Jacqueline De León, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, called the 4-3 ruling "a resounding win for tribes in Montana."
"Despite repeated attacks on their voting rights, tribes and Native voters in Montana stood strong, and today the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that the state's legislative actions were unconstitutional," said De León. "Native voices deserve to be heard and this decision helps ensure that happens."
Josh Douglas, a law professor at University of Kentucky, wrote at Election Law Blog that the state Supreme Court "put real teeth into [the] state constitutional protection for voters," recognizing that the Montana Constitution goes further than federal law in protecting voting rights.
As the state constitution reads, "All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
"The court refused to follow federal precedent, noting that '[t]his court can diverge from the minimal protections offered by the United States Constitution when the Montana Constitution clearly affords greater protection—or even where the provision is nearly identical,'" wrote Douglas. "State courts have various tools within state constitutions to robustly protect voters. The Montana Supreme Court's decision offers a solid roadmap for how to use state constitutional language on the right to vote. Other state supreme courts should follow the Montana Supreme Court's lead."
The ruling comes as Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) faces a competitive race for reelection.
Ronnie Jo Horse, executive director of Western Native Voice, said the ruling "reinforces the principle of equitable access to voting services and the protection of the rights for all voters."
"We are very pleased with today's landmark ruling," said Horse. "It stands as a testament to justice prevailing in defense of the rights of Montanans, especially those of Native American communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular