June, 23 2021, 12:58pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,info(at)fwwatch(dot)org,Seth Gladstone -,sgladstone@fwwatch.org
Biden Giving Up on Public Lands Fracking Ban Would Be a Climate Disaster
WASHINGTON
During a House committee hearing today, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland indicated that the Biden administration would not pursue an oil and gas leasing ban on public lands.
During the hearing, Haaland said, "I don't think there is a plan right now for a permanent ban." The administration is preparing a review of the oil and gas leasing program, which will be released this summer.
Haaland's comments directly contradict Biden's repeated promises to ban fracking on public lands.
In response, Food & Water Watch Policy Director Mitch Jones released the following statement:
"During the campaign, President Biden explicitly promised to halt new fracking on federal lands. It now seems that Biden has no intention of keeping that promise.
"This would be a disastrous capitulation to the fossil fuel industry, and a worrying sign that this White House is not committed to the kinds of actions necessary to stave off climate catastrophe. Stopping fracking on public lands is an important first step to creating the kinds of climate policies necessary to meet the challenges we face. If President Biden is unwilling to stop drilling and fracking on public lands, it is hard to fathom what climate policies he is willing to fight for."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
ICC Condemns Efforts to 'Intimidate' the Court as Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Looms
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and GOP lawmakers in the U.S. have threatened to retaliate against the court if it issues arrest warrants for officials in Israel's government.
May 03, 2024
The office of International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan issued a statement Friday denouncing threats of retaliation after Israel's prime minister and U.S. lawmakers attacked the intergovernmental body over reports that it is preparing arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials related to the war on Gaza.
The ICC statement, which does not mention any individual or country by name, says the court's "independence and impartiality are undermined" when "individuals threaten to retaliate against the court or against court personnel should the office, in fulfillment of its mandate, make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction."
"Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute an offense against the administration of justice under Art. 70 of the Rome Statute," the statement continues. "The office insists that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence its officials cease immediately."
The statement comes days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he "expects the leaders of the free world to stand firmly against" any ICC arrest warrants for officials in Israel's government.
"We expect them to use all the means at their disposal to stop this dangerous move," said Netanyahu.
The New York Timesreported over the weekend that Israeli officials "increasingly believe" that the ICC, which is based in The Hague, is preparing arrest warrants for top members of the country's government, including Netanyahu. The ICC is also believed to be weighing arrest warrants for Hamas leaders.
"If the court proceeds, the Israeli officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and pursuing an excessively harsh response to the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel," the Times reported.
Bipartisan members of the U.S. Congress who have supported Israel's devastating assault on Gaza have joined Netanyahu in condemning the ICC in recent days, pushing the Biden administration to fight any arrest warrants even though—like Israel—the U.S. is not a state party to the statute that created the court. Palestine joined the ICC in 2015.
"If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel," House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a statement earlier this week.
On Wednesday, according toAxios, a bipartisan group of senators held a virtual meeting with senior ICC officials to voice "their concern about possible arrest warrants being issued for Israeli leaders over the war in Gaza."
"If this is true, it should never have happened," said Mark Kersten, an assistant professor focusing on human rights law, international criminal law, and Canadian law at the University of the Fraser Valley. "The U.S. is not a member-state of the ICC, and the court should not be holding meetings or accepting calls from the senators of a non-member state trying to undermine the institution's independence and interfere with its work."
Axios noted that Republican lawmakers have "threatened to pass legislation against the ICC if it moves forward with the arrest warrants, which the Biden administration has said it opposes."
The Israeli government, for its part, has reportedly told the Biden administration that it would retaliate against the Palestinian Authority if the ICC issues arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.
The Biden White House has publicly spoken out against the ICC's probe of Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, an investigation that began in 2021.
The U.S. stance has been slammed as hypocritical given the Biden administration's vocal support for the ICC's decision last year to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes committed in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are parties to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.
In an op-ed for The Guardian earlier this week, former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote that while "the Israeli government is not about to surrender Netanyahu or his deputies for trial," their "travel would suddenly be limited" if the ICC moves ahead with arrest warrants.
"Although the U.S. never joined the court, European governments have, meaning that suddenly Europe and much of the rest of the world would be out of bounds for those charged without risking arrest," Roth observed. "It would also make it more difficult for Washington and London to pretend that their ongoing arming of the Israeli military is not contributing to war crimes."
"In addition, an initial round of charges would be an implicit threat of more," he continued. "As Netanyahu contemplates a potential invasion of Gaza's southernmost city of Rafah despite 1.4 million Palestinians sheltering there, he must worry about whether more civilian deaths would spur Khan to intensify investigation of Israel's apparently indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians. The ICC thus may live up to its potential not only to provide retrospective justice, but also to deter future war crimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mistrial Declared in Abu Ghraib Torture Suit Against US Contractor
"This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history," one plaintiff vowed.
May 02, 2024
The federal judge presiding over a case filed by three Iraqis who were tortured by U.S. military contractors in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago declared a mistrial Thursday after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
After eight days of deliberation—a longer period than the trial itself—the eight civil jurors in Alexandria deadlocked over whether employees of CACI conspired with soldiers to torture detainees. The Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm was hired in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration to provide translators and interrogators in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion and occupation, conspired with soldiers to torture detainees.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema—who said Wednesday that "it's a very difficult case"—declared a mistrial.
Plaintiff Salah Al-Ejaili toldThe Guardian that "it is enough that we tried and didn't remain silent."
"We might not have received justice yet in our just case today, but what is more important is that we made it to trial and spoke up so the world could hear from us directly," he added. "This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights—which filed the case—said that "we are, of course, disappointed by the jury's failure to reach a unanimous verdict in favor of our plaintiffs despite the wealth of evidence."
"But we remain awed by the courage of our clients, who have fought for justice for their torment for 16 years," Azmy added. "We look forward to the opportunity to present our case again."
Al Shimari v. CACI, which was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—a law allowing non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Zuba'e, and Al-Ejaili accused CACI of conspiring with the U.S. military to perpetrate war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib. The men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
The case marked the first time a U.S. jury heard a case brought by Abu Ghraib survivors. Along with the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, the prison became synonymous worldwide with U.S. torture during the War on Terror. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died while in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners suffered torture and abuse ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A 2004 probe by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba found that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%—were innocent. Women and girls were also imprisoned at Abu Ghraib as bargaining chips to lure militants wanted for resisting the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their homeland. Some reported rape and sexual abuse by their captors, which reportedly led to the "honor killing" murders of multiple women.
CACI denies any wrongdoing and still gets millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts each year. In February, Fortunenamed CACI one of the "World's Most Admired Companies" for the seventh consecutive year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Hobbs Signs Repeal, Arizonans Push Abortion Rights Ballot Measure
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," said the campaign behind the ballot initiative.
May 02, 2024
While Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Thursday signed legislation repealing an 1864 abortion ban, reproductive rights advocates in the state reiterated that fuller freedom over family planning requires passing a November ballot measure.
In response to an
Arizona Republic opinion piece noting that there is no emergency clause in House Bill 2677, the law repealing the ban, "which means it won't go off the books until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns," Arizona for Abortion Access stressed that "Arizonans will still be living under a law that denies us the right to make decisions about our own health."
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," the campaign behind the ballot initiative said, adding that only passing the Arizona Abortion Access Act "changes that for good."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient. Arizonans were fighting for it even before the state Supreme Court reinstated the 160-year-old ban.
Even Hobbs recognized that the battle for reproductive freedom is far from over, saying Thursday that "today, we should not rest, but we should recommit to protecting women's bodily autonomy, their ability to make their own healthcare decisions, and the ability to control their lives."
"Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor's office," the Democrat pledged.
Her signature came just a day after the Arizona Senate approved H.B. 2677, following its state House passage last month. In both cases, a couple of Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to advance the legislation—defying not only party members in the state but a national GOP that is hellbent on ending access to abortion care.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday that the Senate vote "to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state" and she was looking forward to Hobbs signing the bill.
"However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year," Mayes acknowledged. "Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner pointed out that "on Tuesday—though technically unrelated—Mayes' office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to stay the issuance of the mandate in the case holding the near-total ban enforceable."
According to Geidner:
If granted, that would push the issuance of the mandate to July 25—90 days beyond the date when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes' request for reconsideration—which would then block enforcement to at least 45 days beyond that, to September 8.
At that point, the repeal law passed on Wednesday likely will have gone into effect—meaning that the 15-week ban would remain the applicable law throughout this entire time—and the expected vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will be less than two months away.
Planned Parenthood Arizona took similar action after the Senate vote on Wednesday. The group's CEO, Angela Florez, explained that "we have said all along that we will use every possible avenue to safeguard essential care for our patients and all Arizonans, and that's exactly what we're doing with today's motion."
"While anti-abortion extremists in the state Legislature will continue to do everything in their power to undermine Arizonans' freedom and criminalize essential healthcare, Planned Parenthood Arizona is taking action to prevent a harmful total ban on abortion from taking effect in our state," Florez continued. "The court's April 9 ruling was both tragic and wrong, but it rested on trying to discern legislative intent. The Legislature has now spoken and clearly does not want the 1864 ban to be enforced."
"We hope the court stays true to its word and respects this long-overdue legislative action, by quickly granting our motion to end the uncertainty over the future of abortion in Arizona," added Florez, whose group supports the ballot measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular