April, 27 2012, 08:55am EDT

Saudi Arabia: Abolish Terrorism Court
Court Tries Peaceful Reformers, Critics in Unfair Proceedings
BEIRUT
Saudi Arabia should abolish the Specialized Criminal Court, set up in 2008 to try terrorism cases, but increasingly used to try peaceful dissidents and rights activists on politicized charges and in proceedings that violate the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said today. In April, it sentenced two people to prison for their peaceful activism, and the trials of at least four others are ongoing, in violation of their rights to freedom of expression.
"Trying Saudi political activists as terrorists merely because they question abuses of government power demonstrates the lengths the Saudi government will go to suppress dissent," said Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The trial of peaceful reformers in a terrorism court underlines the political nature of this court."
The charges against the rights activist and the dissident do not allege that they used or propagated violence.
On April 10, 2012, Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif sentenced Muhammad al-Bajadi to four years in prison and banned him from foreign travel for another five years. The court charged al-Bajadi, who has been on a hunger strike since March 11, with unlawfully establishing a human rights organization; distorting the state's reputation in media; impugning judicial independence; instigating relatives of political detainees to demonstrate and protest; and possessing censored books.
On April 11, 2012, the court also sentenced Yusuf al-Ahmad, an academic and cleric, to five months in prison for "incitement against the ruler, stoking divisions, harming the national fabric, diminishing the prestige of the state and its security and judicial institutions, and producing, storing, and publishing on the internet things that can disturb public order."
On July 7, al-Ahmad published a video on his Twitter account in which he called on King Abdullah to release arbitrarily detained persons. Security forces arrested him the next day. Domestic intelligence agents arrested al-Bajadi on March 20, when several dozen families of detainees had gathered in front of the Interior Ministry in Riyadh to press officials for the release of their relatives, some of whom had been detained for seven or more years without trial. Al-Bajadi is a founding member of the Saudi Association for Civil and Political Rights (ACPRA), which the government has not licensed.
On February 22, 2012, the Specialized Criminal Court began the trial of Khalid al-Juhani, who spoke to international journalists on the designated Saudi Day of Rage of March 11, 2011, to which only a handful of protesters showed up, in part because of heavy police presence. The Interior Ministry, on March 5, 2011, reiterated its ban on public protests. Al-Juhani demanded democracy and freedom of speech in his interview with the BBC, and was immediately arrested and has been detained ever since. He is charged with being present at the place of a prohibited demonstration; distorting the kingdom's reputation; and being in touch with Sa'd al-Faqih, a Saudi dissident abroad, according to a person familiar with the case who said officials designated the charge sheet "secret." His second trial session is due to be held at the end of April.
"Given their experience with the real harm caused by terrorist attacks, one would expect Saudi authorities to know the difference between peaceful political speech and acts of violence," Wilcke said.
Also in February, the court stopped the trial of Sa'id bin Zu'air, a former university professor arrested in 2007, begun about two months earlier, for a long list of charges related to the religious and political positions he had supposedly publicly adopted. A relative of bin Zu'air told Human Rights Watch that the prosecution could not substantiate its claims, which he said were based on statements by fellow prisoners. This is the only time to Human Rights Watch's knowledge that the court has not convicted a defendant accused before it of crimes related to peaceful expression. Bin Zu'air was released in February.
In December 2011, the court began the trial of Mubarak bin Zu'air, a lawyer and Sa'id's son, for "encumbering" the affairs of the ruler, not complying with rules and regulations, attending an unlicensed gathering, spreading sedition, and not obeying religious scholars. Mubarak's arrest came on March 20, 2011, as he was driving to the Interior Ministry to persuade a small crowd gathered there to meet officials to disperse. Mubarak, as the leader of a group of relatives of long-term detainees, had met Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant minister of interior for security affairs, one day earlier to discuss the release or speedy and fair trial of their relatives, and was on his way to deliver Prince bin Nayef's promises of releases and trials.
Mubarak was released on bail in February 2012, but his trial continues. The same relative told Human Rights Watch, however, that a royal decree had ordered trials of peaceful dissidents to be transferred to regular Sharia (Islamic law) courts away from the Specialized Criminal Court, and that this had occurred with Mubarak's case.
This order, if it exists, is not being consistently followed, Human Rights Watch said. For example, in March and April, three trials of peaceful dissidents began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Mikhlif al-Shammari is being tried on seven charges: attempting to distort the reputation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in foreign public opinion and belonging to suspicious organizations; producing and sending things that can disturb public order and religious values through the internet; stoking divisions and inciting public opinion against various public institutions of the country; doubting and impugning the fairness and integrity of officials in government agencies without sound proof; defaming instructions of religious scholars and describing them as calling for fragmentation, hatred, and takfir (declaring a Muslim an unbeliever) in international television; using his writings, which he claims to be nationalistic, for gain for himself and his tribe and using them to put pressure on the rulers of the country; and lying about belonging to the Human Rights Commission in the Eastern Province. The evidence the prosecution listed for these charges consisted entirely of al-Shammari's published articles or media interviews, and no claim was made that they incited violence, according to a copy of the charge sheet on file with Human Rights Watch.
Security forces arrested al-Shammari in June 2010, and held him in pretrial detention, initially on the charge of "annoying others," before his release on bail in February 2012. He received the new charges at his first trial date in March.
In April 2012, the trials against Fadhil al-Manasif, a human rights activist, and Fadhil al-Sulaiman, a religious activist, also began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Al-Sulaiman was arrested in March 2011, for participating in two protests in the Eastern Province's city of Hofuf where he spoke to the assembled crowd (his defense lawyers claim the prosecution confused the protests - they say he protested at the first, for which the local governor issued an amnesty, and tried to prevent the second).
Continued protests, since February 2011, in the heavily Shia Muslim-inhabited Eastern Province, have called for an end to religious discrimination and equal rights with the Sunni Muslim majority. Al-Sulaiman is now also charged with resisting arrest and breaking the camera of a member of the security forces at one of the protests, which he denies. Shia protesters on several occasions have tried to prevent intelligence forces in the protest crowd from filming protesters, leading a suspected member of the intelligence forces to draw a gun, shoot, and injure three protesters in a peaceful march in Qatif, another Eastern Province city, in March 2011, according to eyewitnesses Human Rights Watch spoke to at the time. Shia activists in Qatif told Human Rights Watch that security forces had made arrests of protesters based on their identification through film material.
Al-Manasif is charged with a long string of nonviolent political offenses, including withdrawing allegiance to the rule, stoking divisions (among the people), inciting public opinion against the state, and disturbing public order by participating in marches. Al-Manasif is also accused of supporting a person on a government-issued list of persons in the Eastern Province wanted for their alleged involvement in riots.
Al-Manasif was arrested on October 2, 2011, but the Interior Ministry published its list of 23 Shia men wanted for alleged acts of violence in relation to the protests only in January 2012. In response, several of the wanted men published detailed accounts online denying the Interior Ministry's allegations against them.
Al-Manasif's arrest came after he attempted to speak with the police in Qatif about their detention of two elderly persons, whose sons were wanted for participation in protests. When one of the elderly men collapsed, al-Manasif followed by car the ambulance taking the man to the hospital, and was stopped and arrested at a checkpoint.
"The charges against these peaceful critics are vague, overbroad, and of a political nature," Wilcke said. "By putting the rulers beyond any form of criticism the charges only serve to underline the lack of tolerance of political dissent."
Proceedings at the Specialized Criminal Court also violated the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said. The Specialized Criminal Court was established in 2008 by the Supreme Judicial Council to try thousands of terrorism suspects, many of whom had languished in the kingdom's domestic intelligence jails for years without charge, trial, or prospect of release. It has no statute or other law setting up the court or specifying its jurisdiction that has been made public. Judges are individually selected to sit on a panel constituting the court, housed on one floor of the central Riyadh General Court, but sometimes also travel to other destinations such as Jeddah for hearings.
Saudi Arabia has no written criminal law and prosecutors and judges are free to criminalize any act in accordance with their own interpretation of precepts of Islamic law. The lack of clear and predictable criminal law violates international human rights principles prohibiting arbitrary arrest and guaranteeing fair trials, Human Rights Watch said. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be held guilty of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." International human rights standards also prohibit the criminalization of speech that does not directly incite violence.
Furthermore, defendants do not have adequate means to defend themselves. All defendants were initially kept in incommunicado detention and were unable to meet with their lawyers before the start of a trial. Al-Bajadi wrote in a signed letter, which ACPRA said it received from him in prison, that Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif repeatedly prevented him from appointing a lawyer of his choice.
In August 2011, ACPRA members tried to attend the SCC trial of al-Bajadi, but they initially did not find the court, which was located in an unmarked villa in the Ubhur suburb north of Jeddah. When they arrived, the ACPRA members showed the court their legal power of attorney for the defense of al-Bajadi, but a clerk informed them that the judge refused to recognize their notarized document, claiming instead that al-Bajadi wanted to defend himself. In a telephone call the next day from prison, al-Bajadi informed ACPRA co-founder Muhammad al-Qahtani that he had been sitting blindfolded in a windowless truck outside the court and was not informed that his defense lawyers had come 1,000 kilometers from Riyadh to represent him.
Mubarak bin Zu'air, speaking to Human Rights Watch from his prison cell, said that he was not informed in advance of the start of his trial in December 2011 or of the charges he faced. In court, he said the judge also prevented him from appointing his defense counsel.
The trial of Abd al-'Aziz al-Wuhaibi, another ACPRA member arrested in February 2011, was held entirely behind closed doors, with the judge denying al-Wuhaibi the right to seek legal assistance to defend himself against politicized charges of disobeying the ruler for attempting to set up the first political party in the kingdom, in February 2011. The court did not supply al-Wuhaibi with a written verdict when he was sentenced to eight years in prison in September 2011. Al-Wuhaibi suffered a mental breakdown and is currently in a military hospital, according to a relative and two persons close to the family.
"If the trials were fair, there would be no reason to close them to the public," Wilcke said. "But it seems like the authorities are trying to obscure their injustices by hiding the courts, trial dates, and defendants from public view."
Lawyers were in attendance for the initial trial sessions of Fadhil al-Sulaiman and Khalid al-Juhani, lawyers and relatives told Human Rights Watch.
Articles 4 and 70 of the Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure guarantee the accused the right to seek a lawyer at all stages of investigation and trial, and prohibit officials from restricting access to the lawyer. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Arab Charter of Human Rights whose article 16(d) also guarantees that right. Article 13 of the Charter guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Charter furthermore guarantees the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (articles 26, 27, and 29).
Human Rights Watch opposes all special courts for so-called national security crimes because they frequently try peaceful dissidents on politicized charges and in unfair proceedings.
A number of other dissidents have remained in detention for prolonged periods without referral to court, in violation of article 114 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, which mandates the release of a defendant unless the trial begins within six months of detention.
Tawfiq al-'Amir, a Shia activist, was arrested in August 2011 for calling for a constitutional monarchy. On April 17, 2012, Nadhir al-Majid completed one year in pretrial detention on charges of corresponding with a foreign journalist, taking part in demonstrations, and vague charges related to his published writings critical of Shia religious doctrine over the past seven years, according to al-Majid's wife. His trial has not yet begun.
On March 4, security forces arrested Muhammad al-Wad'ani as he protested silently, holding up a placard at a Riyadh mosque. In a late February YouTube video, al-Wad'ani had spoken about his demands for democracy and an end to the rule of the Saud family. No further information about his fate was available.
"It is time Saudi Arabia stopped politicized persecution of peaceful dissidents through the courts and respected its own laws on court proceedings and international human rights obligations," Wilcke 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
Trump Regulators Ripped for 'Rushed' Approval of Bill Gates' Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming
"Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet," said one expert.
Dec 03, 2025
A leading nuclear safety expert sounded the alarm Tuesday over the Trump administration's expedited safety review of an experimental nuclear reactor in Wyoming designed by a company co-founded by tech billionaire Bill Gates and derided as a "Cowboy Chernobyl."
On Monday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it has "completed its final safety evaluation" for Power Station Unit 1 of TerraPower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, adding that it found "no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit."
Co-founded by Microsoft's Gates, TerraPower received a 50-50 cost-share grant for up to $2 billion from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The 345-megawatt sodium-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) relies upon so-called passive safety features that experts argue could potentially make nuclear accidents worse.
However, federal regulators "are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features," according to Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director Edwin Lyman.
"The only way they could pull this off is by sweeping difficult safety issues under the rug."
The reactor’s construction permit application—which was submitted in March 2024—was originally scheduled for August 2026 completion but was expedited amid political pressure from the Trump administration and Congress in order to comply with an 18-month timeline established in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14300.
“The NRC’s rush to complete the Kemmerer plant’s safety evaluation to meet the recklessly abbreviated schedule dictated by President Trump represents a complete abandonment of its obligation to protect public health, safety, and the environment from catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents or terrorist attacks," Lyman said in a statement Tuesday.
Lyman continued:
The only way the staff could finish its review on such a short timeline is by sweeping serious unresolved safety issues under the rug or deferring consideration of them until TerraPower applies for an operating license, at which point it may be too late to correct any problems. Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet. Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power, causing damage to the reactor’s hot and highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
Of particular concern, NRC staff has assented to a design that lacks a physical containment structure to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the environment if a core melt occurs. TerraPower argues that the reactor has a so-called "functional" containment that eliminates the need for a real containment structure. But the NRC staff plainly states that it "did not come to a final determination of the adequacy and acceptability of functional containment performance due to the preliminary nature of the design and analysis."
"Even if the NRC determines later that the functional containment is inadequate, it would be utterly impractical to retrofit the design and build a physical containment after construction has begun," Lyman added. "The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl.’”
The proposed reactor still faces additional hurdles before construction can begin, including a final environmental impact assessment. However, given the Trump administration's dramatic regulatory rollback, approval and construction are highly likely.
Former NRC officials have voiced alarm over the Trump administration's tightened control over the agency, which include compelling it to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, said earlier this year that Trump's approach marks “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Shows How Recycling Is Largely a 'Toxic Lie' Pushed by Plastics Industry
"These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic," said one campaigner.
Dec 03, 2025
A report published Wednesday by Greenpeace exposes the plastics industry as "merchants of myth" still peddling the false promise of recycling as a solution to the global pollution crisis, even as the vast bulk of commonly produced plastics remain unrecyclable.
"After decades of meager investments accompanied by misleading claims and a very well-funded industry public relations campaign aimed at persuading people that recycling can make plastic use sustainable, plastic recycling remains a failed enterprise that is economically and technically unviable and environmentally unjustifiable," the report begins.
"The latest US government data indicates that just 5% of US plastic waste is recycled annually, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014," the publication continues. "Meanwhile, the amount of single-use plastics produced every year continues to grow, driving the generation of ever greater amounts of plastic waste and pollution."
Among the report's findings:
- Only a fifth of the 8.8 million tons of the most commonly produced types of plastics—found in items like bottles, jugs, food containers, and caps—are actually recyclable;
- Major brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé have been quietly retracting sustainability commitments while continuing to rely on single-use plastic packaging; and
- The US plastic industry is undermining meaningful plastic regulation by making false claims about the recyclability of their products to avoid bans and reduce public backlash.
"Recycling is a toxic lie pushed by the plastics industry that is now being propped up by a pro-plastic narrative emanating from the White House," Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said in a statement. "These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic."
"Instead of investing in real solutions, they’ve poured billions into public relations campaigns that keep us hooked on single-use plastic while our communities, oceans, and bodies pay the price," he added.
Greenpeace is among the many climate and environmental groups supporting a global plastics treaty, an accord that remains elusive after six rounds of talks due to opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that produce the petroleum products from which almost all plastics are made.
Honed from decades of funding and promoting dubious research aimed at casting doubts about the climate crisis caused by its products, the petrochemical industry has sent a small army of lobbyists to influence global treaty negotiations.
In addition to environmental and climate harms, plastics—whose chemicals often leach into the food and water people eat and drink—are linked to a wide range of health risks, including infertility, developmental issues, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.
Plastics also break down into tiny particles found almost everywhere on Earth—including in human bodies—called microplastics, which cause ailments such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, and possibly cardiovascular disease and gut biome imbalance.
A study published earlier this year in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses worldwide annually—impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and at-risk populations.
As Jo Banner, executive director of the Descendants Project—a Louisiana advocacy group dedicated to fighting environmental racism in frontline communities—said in response to the new Greenpeace report, "It’s the same story everywhere: poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities turned into sacrifice zones so oil companies and big brands can keep making money."
"They call it development—but it’s exploitation, plain and simple," Banner added. "There’s nothing acceptable about poisoning our air, water, and food to sell more throwaway plastic. Our communities are not sacrifice zones, and we are not disposable people.”
Writing for Time this week, Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency and current president of the environmental justice group Beyond Plastics, said that "throwing your plastic bottles in the recycling bin may make you feel good about yourself, or ease your guilt about your climate impact. But recycling plastic will not address the plastic pollution crisis—and it is time we stop pretending as such."
"So what can we do?" Enck continued. "First, companies need to stop producing so much plastic and shift to reusable and refillable systems. If reducing packaging or using reusable packaging is not possible, companies should at least shift to paper, cardboard, glass, or metal."
"Companies are not going to do this on their own, which is why policymakers—the officials we elected to protect us—need to require them to do so," she added.
Although lawmakers in the 119th US Congress have introduced a handful of bills aimed at tackling plastic pollution, such proposals are all but sure to fail given Republican control of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the Trump administration's pro-petroleum policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Platner 20 Points Ahead of Mills in Maine Senate Race as Critics Spotlight Her Anti-Worker Veto Record
The new poll, said the progressive candidate, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past."
Dec 03, 2025
It's been more than a month since a media firestorm over old Reddit posts and a tattoo thrust US Senate candidate Graham Platner into the national spotlight, just as Maine Gov. Janet Mills was entering the Democratic primary race in hopes of challenging Republican Sen. Susan Collins—a controversy that did not appear at the time to make a dent in political newcomer Platner's chances in the election.
On Wednesday, the latest polling showed that the progressive combat veteran and oyster farmer has maintained the lead that was reported in a number of surveys just after the national media descended on the New England state to report on his past online comments and a tattoo that some said resembled a Nazi symbol, which he subsequently had covered up.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which endorsed Platner on Wednesday, commissioned the new poll, which showed him polling at 58% compared to Mills' 38%.
Nancy Zdunkewicz, a pollster with Z to A Polling, which conducted the survey on behalf of the PCCC, said the poll represented "really impressive early consolidation" for Platner, with the primary election still six months away.
“Platner isn’t just leading in the Democratic primary. He’s leading by a lot, 20 points—58% are supporting him,” Zdunkewicz told Zeteo. “Only 38% are supporting Mills. There are very few undecided voters or weak supporters for Mills to win over at this point in the race."
Platner has consistently spoken to packed rooms across Maine since launching his campaign in August, promoting a platform that is unapologetically focused on delivering affordability and a better quality of life for Mainers.
He supports expanding the popular Medicare program to all Americans; drew raucous applause at an early rally by declaring, “Our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza"; and has spoken in support of breaking up tech giants and a federal war crimes investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Mills entered the race after Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to. She garnered national attention earlier this year for standing up to President Donald Trump when he threatened federal funding for Maine over the state's policy of allowing students to play on school athletic teams that correspond with their gender.
But the PCCC survey found that when respondents learned details about each candidate, negative critiques of Mills were more damaging to her than Platner's old Reddit posts and tattoo.
Zdunkewicz disclosed Platner's recent controversy to the voters she surveyed, as well as his statements about how his views have shifted in recent years, and found that 21% of voters were more likely to back him after learning about his background. Thirty-nine percent said they were less likely to support him.
The pollster also talked to respondents about the fact that establishment Democrats pushed Mills, who is 77, to enter the race, and about a number of bills she has vetoed as governor, including a tax on the wealthy, a bill to set up a tracking system for rape kits, two bills to reduce prescription drug costs, and several bills promoting workers' rights.
Only 14% of Mainers said they were more likely to vote for Mills after learning those details, while 50% said they were less likely to support her.
At The Lever, Luke Goldstein on Wednesday reported that Mills' vetoes have left many with the "perception that she’s mostly concerned with business interests," as former Democratic Maine state lawmaker Andy O'Brien said. Corporate interests gave more than $200,000 to Mills' two gubernatorial campaigns.
Earlier this year, Mills struck down a labor-backed bill to allow farm workers to discuss their pay with one another without fear of retaliation. Last year, she blocked a bill to set a minimum wage for farm laborers, opposing a provision that would have allowed workers to sue their employers.
She also vetoed a bill banning noncompete agreements and one that would have banned anti-union tactics by corporations.
"In previous years," Goldstein reported, "she blocked efforts to stop employers from punishing employees who took state-guaranteed paid time off, killed a permitting reform bill to streamline offshore wind developments because it included a provision mandating union jobs, and vetoed a modest labor bill that would have required the state government to merely study the issue of paper mill workers being forced to work overtime without adequate compensation."
Speaking to PCCC supporters on Wednesday, Platner suggested the new polling shows that many Mainers agree with the central argument of his campaign: "We need to build power again for working people, both in Maine and nationally.”
The survey, he said, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past—which is an establishment politician supported by the power structures, supported by Washington, DC, coming up to Maine and trying to run a kind of standard race... We are really trying to build a grassroots movement up here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


