http://www.youtube.com/v/4aRfR0aeT-w?version=3&f=videos&app=youtube_gdata Follow this link: ‘EU shocked & angry by unaccountable US surveillance’
Guinea – "You journalists talk too much. You are spies, we are going to tear you apart”
Reporters Without Borders is very worried about a decline in security for news providers in the Guinean capital of Conakry during the past two months. At least 15 journalists have been physically attacked and have had equipment damaged in growing political tension since President Alpha Condé announced on 13 April that he had decided to hold parliamentary elections on 30 June. More than a dozen people have been killed and 100 wounded in clashes between demonstrators and security forces (…) … Read More
Supreme Court allows police to take DNA without a warrant
Critics claim that taking DNA samples from anyone in custody without a warrant is considered an unconstitutional “search”, but the high court believes otherwise. US police who arrest anyone for a felony are now legally allowed to take a cheek swab of the arrestee to obtain a DNA sample, regardless of whether or not an individual has been convicted. The court compared this practice to fingerprinting and photographing, and ruled that it is “a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” The court also described DNA sampling as the 21st century version of fingerprinting. “DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, representing the court’s majority decision. The Supreme Court narrowly ruled 5-4 in favor of this practice, which Justice Samuel Alito described as “the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades.” In response to critics’ claims that DNA sampling is an unconstitutional search, the court said that the procedure requires nothing beyond “a light touch” and does not require a surgical intrusion, which is why it does not constitute a “search”. Twenty-eight states and the federal government currently take DNA samples from those who are under felony arrest, but have not yet gone to trial. Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled with the minority, responded angrily to the ruling, suggesting that DNA sampling of arrestees may be a stepping-stone to future privacy violations of innocent Americans in the name of safety. “Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever season,” Scalia said in response to the decision. “This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA whenever you fly on an airplane.” During oral arguments in February, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her concern that DNA swabs could eventually be conduced in schools and workplaces if the court upholds the police procedure. “Why don’t we do this for anybody who comes in for a driver’s license?” she asked. But President Barack Obama has made comments in which he appears to favor DNA sampling of arrestees. In January 2012, the president signed the Katie Sephich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which provides states with federal funding for police to conduct cheek swabs. “It’s the right thing to do,” Obama said in a 2010 appearance on America’s Most Wanted, referring to the procedure of taking DNA from arrestees. “This is where the national registry becomes so important.” The DNA sampling case landed on the Supreme Court’s desk this year after 26-year-old Alonzo King, a Maryland resident, was arrested for second-degree assault in 2009. Police took a DNA sample from his cheek and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years earlier. As a result, King was convicted of both the 2009 assault and the 2003 rape and was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was later overturned after the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the DNA sampling was considered an unreasonable search. The state then brought the case to the Supreme Court, which on Monday upheld the police procedure. But the procedure remains controversial, and Scalia warned that the decision will lead to dire consequences. “Make no mistake about it,” Scalia wrote. “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” … Read More
Prisoners held in British Afghan base no different to Gitmo inmates – MP
RT: Mr. Corbyn, is it right to compare Camp Bastion to Guantanamo Bay? Jeremy Corbyn: The principles are very much the same, that is that people are collected or arrested as enemy combatants and for very long periods not allowed normal judicial process. With Guantanamo Bay, and I think the legacy of 2001, camp Bastion and the extraordinary rendition process is something that is going to live for a very long time, international law has been seriously undermined by Britain and the USA in their behavior over Afghanistan for the past 12 years. RT: I guess not only breaking international law but human rights violations in these facilities have occurred, in Guantanamo we know that the detainees are starving themselves to be heard, do we know what is happening to those at camp Bastion? JC: Well, it’s very difficult to find out exactly what is happening there and also what the nationality of some of the prisoners actually is. There is no longer any rendition going on from either of the bases in Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, but there seems to be considerable numbers held at both prisons and its very unclear whether the handing over of the bases to the Afghan authorities when the main forces of Britain and the USA withdraw next year, is actually going to be complete or whether there will be a security facility retained by the USA and Britain, which will include the prison facilities. What we do know is that the preaching of international law by Britain and the USA and others seems to me very hypocritical and hollow when, on the question of the past rendition of soldiers, not soldiers but prisoners rather, to Guantanamo Bay but also the indefinite detention of people in both these bases who may well be Afghan people or may well be people from neighboring countries. RT: We know that President Obama has said that he wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, but those words have just been met with skepticism now, what do we know of the British authorities, are they planning to return these prisoners to the Afghan authorities when they leave Afghanistan? JC: Well, I’ve had a number of meetings with the British government and I’ve raised the issue in parliament about British nationals who were held in Guantanamo Bay, all of whom have now been released and are now British residents, these are foreign nationals with the right of residence in Britain, the most prominent of which Shaker Aamer who is still held in Guantanamo Bay and is on hunger strike at the present time. The official position of the British government is that Guantanamo should be closed down and that all the prisoners should either be put on trial or released, that is its official position. President Obama claimed in his first election campaign he was going to close down Guantanamo Bay, he said as much in his second election campaign and here we are 5 years later, it’s still up and running, he claims or his administration claim that they can’t get it passed in the house and the senate in the USA and that’s the problem. I find it quite extraordinary that a major power like the USA should flout international law in this way, and I think we have to redouble our efforts to get Guantanamo Bay closed down and the rule of international law asserted. RT: Just briefly, what do these kinds of prisons tell us about this US-led war that Britain was also involved in, in Afghanistan? JC: Well it shows an utter contempt for the alleged independence of the Afghan government. The Afghan government is supposed to be in charge of the country and there are British and American and many other soldiers allegedly fighting to protect this government, they claim they can’t hand prisoners over to this government because they’ll be tortured but instead they’re held illegally in these two bases, What we need is transparency, the right of visiting, the right of representation, and to either release the prisoners or put them on trial. It is simply not right that prisoners should be held indefinitely without charge or trial. … Read More
Dartmouth students punished for protesting rape
“At least two thirds of the protesters have now received disciplinary letters, and it seems random – some people who were featured prominently in the protest didn’t, and others did,” Karenina Rojas, one of the protesters and a college senior, told ThinkProgress. On April 19, a group of sexual violence prevention activists held a rally in which they accused the school of underreporting cases of sexual assault, racism and homophobia. A student group called Real Talk Dartmouth interrupted an event called Dimensions, which is held annually to attract prospective students. One student was carrying a sign that stated, “I Was Called A ‘Fag’ In My Freshman Dorm”. “We were protesting sexual assault on this campus, and the administration’s failure to respond to homophobia and racism on campus,” Nastassja Schmiedt, a sophomore at Dartmouth, told The Huffington Post. “We were informally informing the college of civil rights violations.” School officials tried to prevent the protesters from entering the area where the event was held, but the students violated the orders and disrupted it anyway, giving prospective students a glimpse of sexual assault and homophobia on campus. Some of the protesters subsequently received rape and death threats from other students. When these threats were reported to the school, Dartmouth College officials said that the ‘public disruption’ caused by the protesters was equally as serious as the rape threats they received thereafter. “I don’t understand it at all because not following directions seems like something incredibly benign,” Rojas told the campus newspaper, The Dartmouth. This week, at least 10 students who were involved in the protest received letters informing them that they may have violated the school’s code of conduct for their refusal to follow college officials’ instructions to avoid the 1953 Commons, the dining hall where the event for prospective students was held. A group of students, seven of which received letters from the administration’s Judicial Affairs Office, have now filed a federal Clery Act complaint against Dartmouth, claiming that the school is retaliating against them. The complaint, which has been sent to the US Department of Education, includes testimonies from more than 30 students and alumni, which claim that the administration is creating a hostile environment by failing to address cases of sexual assault, racism and homophobia. “Dartmouth is a business, and it runs like a business selling its prestige,” Anna Winham, a college junior, told the campus newspaper. “Its prestige can be threatened by lawsuits against it such as the Clery Act complaint against it. It’s a way to force Dartmouth’s hand and make it change.” Rojas told ThinkProgress that the administration’s actions against the protesters are more drastic than previous responses to student uprisings. “I was a member of Occupy Dartmouth, and we occupied the student center for months… We definitely failed to comply with directions, and we were never disciplined like this,” Rojas said, adding that the United Students Against Sweatshops group was never drastically punished either. In the end, the sophomore said she wants Dartmouth to address the issue of sexual assault in the same way that it is addressing the issue of violating school officials’ orders to avoid disrupting an event. “If we broke a rule, we should be punished – but we ask the administration to also punish serial rapists,” Rojas said. “The fact is that Dartmouth is punishing protesters who are very visible, but won’t punish students who commit assaults.” … Read More
Moscow City Court rejects Pussy Riot appeal
“There are no politics, they are just hooligans,” the chairwoman of the court, Olga Yegorova, said after the hearing. Yegorova has ruled that in August 2012 the court appropriately sentenced members of the ‘feminist punk band’ Pussy Riot – Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina (along with Ekaterina Samutsevich, whose term was later changed on suspended one) to two years in prison for aggravated ‘hooliganism motivated by religious hatred’. Despite Alyokhina having a child, she was still denied parole. The trial was held after the group performed what they called a ‘punk prayer’ in Moscow’s main cathedral, chanting the song ‘Mother of God send Putin Away’, recording it and posting the video on the internet. The lawyer for the other jailed Pussy Riot members, Irina Khrunova, considered the ruling “predictable” and said she was now going to file a complaint with the Russian Supreme Court. “I won’t comment on actions or words of the chairwoman of the Moscow City Court, I will, however, continue to fight injustice,” Khrunova told Interfax. The defense insists that the clients must be fully acquitted as their crime was of a non-violent nature and caused no material damage. Another complaint is that there were alleged procedural violations during the investigation and the trial process itself. The women themselves also deny all charges saying that the gig was a political protest against the ties between Russian authorities and the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church. A Russian court earlier denied Alyokhina’s request for early release, filed seven months after the sentence was passed. Moreover, she was not allowed to be present at the hearing. In protest against a court’s decision not to allow her to personally attend a hearing, Alyokhina declared a hunger strike. As the appeal concluded, she vowed to continue with her hunger strike. On Tuesday, less than a week after she declared a hunger strike, Alyokhina was reportedly transferred to a medical station in a penal colony in Perm Region, where she is serving her sentence. Russia’s Federal Service for Execution of Punishment (FSIN) has confirmed the information that was initially tweeted by Tolokonnikova’s husband, activist Pyotr Verzilov. “She still refuses food,” the FSIN said. … Read More
Guantanamo an ideal recruitment tool for terrorists – UN human rights chief
Speaking at the opening of the spring session of the UN’s Human Rights Council, Pillay accused the Obama administration of human rights violations, pointing to the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba as an “example of the struggle against terrorism failing to uphold human rights, among them the right to a fair trial,” Reuters reports. Follow RT’s day-by-day timeline of the Gitmo hunger strike A reported 103 inmates are participating in the ongoing hunger strike at Guantanamo, 30 of whom are still being force-fed, Lt. Col. Samuel House told RT. Force-feeding is an extremely invasive and highly controversial practice, which many human rights activists – and the UN – consider to torture. According to Kuwaiti-born detainee Fayiz al-Kandari, the nasal tubes used for force-feeding are large, painful and have hazardous side effects: “It takes several attempts to get the tube into the right place,” his lawyer Carlos Warner told RT. “Once it goes down his throat he has a difficult time breathing. There’s a gag reflex.”Witnesses have claimed that Guantanamo guards used sexual assault as an interrogation technique to extract information from Muslim inmates.“The torture and information extraction methods that we used certainly created a great deal of doubt and questions in my mind to whether or not this was my America,” Terry Holdbrooks, a former guard at the camp said in an interview with RT.There have also been incidents where guards used force unprovoked against detainees. Ramzi Kassem, the lawyer for Moath al Alawi, said that guards shot five rubber bullets at his client for no discernible reason.Many of the 166 detainees have been held for more than a decade without charge, and their continued detention amounted to “arbitrary detention in breach of international law,” Pillay said, reiterating her earlier accusations against the Obama administration.”We must be clear about this: The United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold,” she said in April. US President Barack Obama vowed to close Guantanamo in 2009, at the outset of his first term in office. However, he was blocked from fulfilling that promise by legislation passed by the US Congress. However, in a speech on May 23 this year Obama indicated his willingness to resume prisoner transfers from Guantanamo Bay, but offered few details on the planned changes and when they would be implemented. In his speech, Obama urged lawmakers in Washington to enact his proposals immediately: “I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense.”Counter-terror policies stoke terrorism, not prevent itThe military prison at Guantanamo Bay was opened by the administration of former President George W. Bush following the September 11, 2011, terror attacks in the US. It eventually emerged that measures designed to tighten security at the prison led to abuses of power and human rights violations. Concerns about the effectiveness of current counter-terror policies were raised in the past week after attacks against soldiers in London and Paris – the London slaying of 25-year-old Lee Rigby by two men was apparently in retaliation for UK military involvement in Muslim countries. UN human rights chief Pillay likewise warned against excessive “counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations,” saying that she had received allegations of “very grave violations of human rights… Such practices are self-defeating. Measures that violate human rights do not uproot terrorism, they nurture it.” Her statement comes amid mounting calls in both France and the UK to toughen anti-terror measures following recent attacks in both capitals. In London, an off-duty soldier was killed and beheaded by two men, and an off-duty soldier in Paris was stabbed in a separate attack. Pillay did not refer to either case in her remarks.Following the Woolwich murder, debates over the bill widely known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ has reappeared in the UK along with calls for tighter controls on extremist groups. UK Home Secretary Theresa May said on Sunday that it was “essential” to grant intelligence agencies the capacity to access communications and data collections by Internet service providers, including details of individuals’ web browsing history, social media messages and internet gaming, storing them all for 12 months, despite overwhelming opposition to the Draft Communications Data Bill. However, such practices implemented in the US failed to secure the country from acts of terrorism. Not only being ineffective, they also cost the US budget over $700 billion since 9/11. This, however, did not help to prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. “I believe this was a massive failure of the surveillance state that we’ve created in America,” American lawyer Jesselyn Radack told RT. “Since 9/11 we spent over $700 billion on national security and a lot of that is surveillance with video cameras, with massive data collection, with fusion centers, and none of those helped to deter or detect any terrorist plot. And while the surveillance video was useful in reconstructing what happened it didn’t prevent it.” … Read More
