For Immediate Release
Contact:
Reprieve's London office can be contacted on: communications [at] reprieve.org.uk / +44 (0) 207 553 8140.,Reprieve US,, based in New York City, can be contacted on Katherine [dot] oshea [at] reprieve.org
US Embarrassment "Trumps British Justice" in Drone Victim's Case
The Court of Appeal in London has today ruled that the case brought against the UK Government by a Pakistani victim of a drone strike cannot proceed as it might result in the "condemnation of the US by a court of this country."
LONDON
The Court of Appeal in London has today ruled that the case brought against the UK Government by a Pakistani victim of a drone strike cannot proceed as it might result in the "condemnation of the US by a court of this country."
Noor Khan (28) lost his father, a local elder, to a 2011 drone strike on a local council meeting in North Waziristan, which had gathered to resolve a chromite mining dispute. After evidence emerged that the British intelligence agency, GCHQ, was supporting the CIA's drone strikes in Pakistan, Mr Khan brought a judicial review in the British courts against the UK Government.
However, the Court of Appeal today ruled that, despite Mr Khan's arguments being "persuasive," they accepted the British Government's claims that the case should not proceed as "a finding by our court that the notional UK operator of a drone bomb which caused a death was guilty of murder would inevitably be understood...by the US as a condemnation of the US."
The court also noted that it was "not clear that the defence of combat immunity would be available to a UK national" tried for "murder by drone strike." The comment came in response to arguments put forward by Mr Khan's lawyers that the programme of strikes in Pakistan is illegal and that UK involvement could lead to UK officials facing murder charges.
Kat Craig, legal director at human rights charity Reprieve, which is supporting Mr Khan, said: "It is shameful that the risk of embarrassing the US has trumped British justice in this case. It now appears that the UK Government can get away with murder, provided it is committed alongside an ally who may be sensitive to public criticism. It is a sad day when the rights of civilian victims of drone strikes take second place to the PR concerns of the US Government."
Noor Khan said: "I used to think that Britain stood for justice, but now it seems as though the Government has put itself above the law. However, I am still determined to get answers from the UK Government about the part they have played in the death of my father. The CIA's drone programme has not only killed hundreds of civilians, but is turning people in Pakistan against the US and its allies. This is why I was so upset to hear that Britain is helping the CIA to carry out these killings, and even more upset when the government refused to respond to my questions."
Rosa Curling from Leigh Day, which is representing Mr Khan said: "The court's decision not to determine the lawfulness of our government's involvement in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, deadly strikes which have killed many civilians over recent years including my client's father, simply to spare the US government embarrassment is not only disappointing but also deeply worrying. The courts must have jurisdiction over the legality of our government's action irrespective of whether they act alongside a foreign state or not."
ENDS
1. For further information, please contact Donald Campbell in Reprieve's press office: +44 (0) 207 553 8166 / donald.campbell@reprieve.org.uk
2. Further information on Mr Khan's case can be found here: https://www.reprieve.org.uk/cases/2012_03_28_noor_khan/ Copies of the judgement are available on request.
Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.
LATEST NEWS
'Everyone Should Celebrate': FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules
"Today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people," said one advocate.
Apr 25, 2024
Open internet advocates on Thursday applauded the Federal Communications Commission's long-anticipated vote to revive net neutrality rules and reestablish FCC oversight of broadband.
The 3-2 vote along party lines to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act came seven months after FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced the push in the wake of the U.S. Senate confirming Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks joined Rosenworcel and Gomez to launch the rulemaking process last year and finalize the policy change on Thursday. Commissioner Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington both aligned with the powerful telecom industry by opposing the effort to prevent internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful online content.
Demand Progress Education Fund senior campaigner Joey DeFrancesco said the revival "has been desperately needed" since former FCC Chair Ajit Pai—an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump—led the "disastrous decision" in 2017 to gut a 2015 agency policy codifying the principle that has been foundational to the internet since its inception.
"Internet access is not a luxury, but a necessity to participate in society and survive in our modern economy," DeFrancesco stressed. "The FCC's new rule will ensure the commission has the full ability to expand broadband and the authority to ensure access to an open internet."
"The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "everyone should celebrate today's FCC vote."
"Public support for net neutrality is overwhelming, and people understand why we need a federal watchdog to protect everyone's access to the most essential communications platform of our time," he noted. "The FCC heard the outcry and did its job: delivering on promises to stand with internet users and against big telecom companies and their trade groups, which have spent untold millions of dollars to spread lies about net neutrality and thwart any oversight or regulation."
Aaron praised Rosenworcel and her staff for leading the restoration effort, as well as Starks and Gomez for working with her to reverse the Trump FCC's move and ensure "that the agency can once again protect internet users whenever big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon attempt to harm them."
"Big cable and phone companies won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that these companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination," he emphasized. "This is what democracy should look like: Public servants responding to public sentiment, taking steps to protect just and reasonable services and free expression, and showing that the government is capable of defending the public interest."
Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and current Common Cause special adviser, was similarly enthusiastic, saying that "if I weren't out of the country today, I would be personally at the FCC jumping up and down, saluting the majority for reinstituting the network neutrality rules that were so foolishly eliminated by the previous commission."
"Our communications technologies are evolving so swiftly, affecting so many important aspects of our individual lives, that they must be available to all of us on a nondiscriminatory basis. And they must advance the public interest, protecting consumers, fostering competition, and providing us all the news and information we need as we fight to maintain our democracy," he continued. "We still have much to do; but today, let's celebrate a huge step forward."
The vote notably comes during an election year—and as Democratic President Joe Biden, a net neutrality supporter, is gearing up for a November rematch against Trump.
"The internet is crucial to civic engagement in the United States today. It functions as a virtual public square where social justice movements organize and garner support," said Common Cause's Ishan Mehta. "The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, also piled on the praise, proclaiming that "today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people."
"We are thrilled that the FCC now has the authority it needs to protect consumers, promote the exercise of First Amendment rights online, and ensure that everyone has access to high-quality, affordable internet," she said. "However, we urge the commission not to exercise its authority to preempt consistent state laws that grant consumers additional protections."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, also celebrated the vote while stressing that the commission's work is far from over. In addition to warning of court fights to come, he said that "broadband providers will continue attempting to rebrand their old plans for internet fast and slow lanes, hoping to sneak them through."
"The FCC will need to diligently enforce its rules," Bergmayer argued, "including clarifying that discrimination in favor of certain apps or categories of traffic 'impairs' and 'degrades' traffic that is left in the slow lane, and that broadband providers cannot simply take apps that people use on the internet every day and package them as a separate 'nonbroadband' service."
"The FCC must also ensure that practices that are not expressly prohibited but still unreasonably interfere with the ability of end users to freely use the internet, or of edge providers to freely compete, are disallowed," he added. "These practices include discriminatory zero-rating and network interconnection practices."
Like Leventoff, he also recognized the vital role of states with stricter policies, saying that those "with excellent net neutrality and broadband consumer protection statutes, like California, can be a nationwide model for other states and the FCC to adopt to strengthen their own rules."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'We Don't Have Time for This': New Biden Power Sector Rules Spare Existing Gas Plants
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions," one campaigner said.
Apr 25, 2024
President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agency announced a final quartet of rules on Thursday to limit climate-warming emissions from existing coal and new gas-powered plants, as well as reduce mercury, wastewater, and coal ash pollution from coal facilities.
While several environmental groups and climate advocates praised the new rules, others pointed out that they still exclude emissions from existing gas-powered plants, which are currently the nation's leading source of electricity. A rule on these plants has been pushed into the future, likely until after the November election, which means they may not be regulated for years if pro-fossil fuel Republican Donald Trump retakes the White House.
"We don't have time for this half-assed BS, EPA!" Genevieve Guenther, founding director of End Climate Silence, wrote on social media. "Later is too late."
"As critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
The carbon dioxide rule is the first federal rule to limit climate pollution from currently running coal plants, according to The Associated Press. It mandates that coal plants that intend to operate past 2039 and new gas-powered plants must cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by that date. The EPA calculates that this would cut CO2 emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047, which is equal to taking 328 million gas-powered cars off the road or cancelling power sector emissions for almost a year. By the same date, it would cost the industry $19 billion to comply, but generate a net $370 billion in economic benefits due to reduced costs from healthcare and extreme weather. It would also prevent as many as 1,200 early deaths and 1,900 new asthma cases in 2035 alone.
The effect of the rule would be to force coal plants to either cease operations or find a way to remove their emissions with carbon, capture, and storage technology, according to the AP.
"The EPA's new rulemaking once again claims that carbon capture is an effective means of reducing climate pollution, even though it has never worked in the real world," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The Biden administration must take aggressive actions outside of this rulemaking to rein in fossil fuels—primarily by using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals. Pretending that carbon capture can dramatically reduce climate pollution is nothing but a dangerous fantasy."
The New York Times reported that the rules "could deliver a death blow" to coal, which has already declined from producing 52% of U.S. electricity in 1990 to 16.2% in 2023.
"EPA's new carbon standards for coal-fired power plants, coupled with parallel rulemakings cracking down on mercury and air toxics, coal ash, and toxic power plant wastewater discharge, rightly force the hand of all coal plants that remain: clean up or make an exit plan," Julie McNamara, a senior analyst and deputy policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement.
Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie O'Hanlon called the regulations a "game-changer."
"These regulations are the kind of bold action that young people have been fighting for," O'Hanlon added. "President Biden must continue moving us toward ending the fossil fuel era: It's what science demands and what young people want to see from him."
The Biden administration has promised to eliminate power sector emissions by 2035; the new regulations, along with the Inflation Reduction Act, put the U.S. on course to slash those emissions by 75% by that date, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over," NRDC president and CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement. "These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source. They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules."
Beyond fossil fuel control, the other three rules would strengthen toxic metals standards by 67% and mercury standards by 70%, cut coal wastewater pollution by more than 660 million pounds per year, and establish for the first time regulations on the disposal of coal ash in certain areas.
"The suite of power plant rules announced by EPA Administrator Regan represents a significant step forward in the fight for ambitious climate action and environmental justice," Chitra Kumar, the managing director of UCS' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement. "Together, these rules help address a long-standing legacy of public health and environmental harms stemming from coal-fired power plants that scientific studies show have disproportionately hurt communities of color and low-income communities."
However, the groups also said the administration must move to regulate existing gas plants.
UCS' McNamara said that "as critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions—and it must look beyond carbon to reckon with the full suite of health-harming pollution these plants disproportionately and inequitably force on the communities that surround them," McNamara added. "When all the heavy costs of fossil fuel-fired power plants are tallied, it's unequivocally clear that clean energy presents the just and necessary path ahead."
NRDC's Bapna agreed, saying, "Existing gas-fired power plants are massive carbon emitters. They kick out other dangerous pollution that most hurts low-income communities and people of color. The EPA must cut all of that pollution—and soon—in a way that confronts the climate crisis and protects frontline communities."
At the same time, climate campaigners are already mobilizing to defend the new rules from Republican lawmakers who want to reverse them. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she would introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to "overturn the EPA's job-killing regulations announced today."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules," Sunrise's O'Hanlon said. "They're making clear whose side they are on. They'd rather please the oil and gas CEOs who back their campaign than save tens of thousands of lives."
"The regulations are clear eyed about the science: To stop the climate crisis and save lives, we must move off fossil fuels," O'Hanlon continued. "Biden can keep building trust with young people by declaring a climate emergency and rejecting new fossil fuel projects in the coming months."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Netanyahu Demands Harsher Crackdown on US Students as Campus Protests Spread
"Biden's partner in crimes against humanity is now endangering U.S. college students," said one Palestinian rights advocate.
Apr 25, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested Wednesday that he was dissatisfied with the arrests of hundreds of U.S. college students—some of whom were violently detained by large groups of police officers—in the last week at a growing number of protests against universities' complicity in Israel's massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.
Netanyahu called the students who have set up encampments in solidarity with Palestinians "antisemitic mobs" and accused them of attacking Jewish students and faculty—despite the fact that Jewish organizers have been among those protesting Israel's bombardment of Gaza and demanding a cease-fire.
"It's unconscionable. It has to be stopped. It has to be condemned and condemned unequivocally... More has to be done," said Netanyahu shortly after Texas state troopers on horseback arrived at the campus of the University of Texas at Austin and arrested at least 50 people, including a photojournalist.
Artist and author Eli Valley said Netanyahu's call for a more forceful response could endanger U.S. college students in the interest of distracting "from the horrors" the Israeli government is inflicting in Gaza.
The prime minister's comments also came as at least 93 people were arrested at the University of Southern California, and hours before more than 100 students were detained by Boston police officers at Emerson College.
The current surge in student protests comes after months of demonstrations across the country demanding that President Joe Biden push for a permanent cease-fire and end unconditional military aid for Israel, which has received billions of dollars in weapons from the U.S. since it began its latest attack on Gaza—and full-scale obstruction of humanitarian aid—in October.
Starting with a solidarity encampment at Columbia University last week, U.S. college students have called on their schools to divest from weapons manufacturers, tech companies, and other entities that work with the Israeli government, and have demanded a cease-fire.
More than 100 students were suspended from Columbia and its affiliate, Barnard College, and then arrested last week—but the New York Police Department's response, sanctioned by university president Minouche Shafik, didn't stop protesters from erecting another encampment that was still up on Thursday as student organizers and administrators held negotiations.
Al Jazeera reported Thursday that despite law enforcement's violent response to protesters, demonstrations have sprung up at dozens of schools.
"As a sheer tactical matter, mass arrests of the protesters seem to be having the opposite of its intended effect," observed MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes.
Netanyahu's call for a greater show of force against students exercising their constitutional rights, said Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom Husam Zomlot, is evidence that the prime minister "knows the tide is turning, and time is against him and his racist government."
On Thursday morning, new demonstrations were announced at the City College of New York, Northwestern University, Emory University, Georgetown University, and Princeton University.
Organizers of some of the protests said they would not dismantle their encampments until their demands, including for divestment from companies benefiting from Israel's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, were met.
"We refuse to allow business to continue as usual in the face of Northwestern's complicity," said organizers with Educators for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Student Liberation Union at the university in Evanston, Illinois. "While Northwestern University rejects demands to disclose its investments, members of its Board of Trustees have served as executives of companies that supply arms to Israel. The university maintains partnerships like the Israel Innovation Project (IIP), whose research has strengthened the Israeli military-industrial complex and its capacity for surveillance and AI-powered apartheid. Our movement will not be stopped, nor will it be co-opted—we are committed to reclaiming our campus and reimagining what a university space should be until our following demands are met."
The groundswell of protest activity on college campuses, taking place just over six months ahead of the U.S. general election, led some observers to note that Biden may be sacrificing crucial support from young voters in the interest of continuing to support a foreign government's military operation that has killed at least 34,305 Palestinians.
"As usual, Netanyahu openly amplifies GOP messages," said The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein, "which should remind Biden he's tied himself to a partner [who is] hoping he loses."
Biden told reporters on Monday that he condemned "the antisemitic protests" without saying which student demonstrations have expressed support for antisemitism or how, and said in a statement on Sunday that "blatant antisemitism is reprehensible and dangerous—and it has absolutely no place on college campuses, or anywhere in our country"—but also didn't specify in the remarks what antisemitic activity the White House has observed at protests in support of Gaza.
U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Wednesday in an interview with a CBS News reporter that campus protesters demanding a cease-fire are practicing "left-wing fascism" and "challenging representative democracy" and called for their arrests.
On "All In with Chris Hayes" on Wednesday evening, Hayes pointed out that as politicians from across the political spectrum accuse student protesters of antisemitism and violence, "the actual issues raised by the protests and protesters, which include the status of the hostages in Gaza, Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, the 30,000+ deaths there, and how and when the war might be brought to a close, all remain completely unresolved."
"What is the endpoint here?" Hayes asked. "How many people have to die, how many is tolerable, how many tens of thousands, how many children? How will the hostages come home? With the specter of even more mass destruction looming ahead, how will the people of Gaza find anything approaching a habitable future?"
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular