In November, over a year into Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a report by the Gaza-based Community Training Center for Crisis Management produced a grim statistic: “Nearly all children in the embattled Palestinian enclave believe their death is imminent — and nearly half of them want to die.” It is no wonder why the statistic, which came from a survey of families with disabled…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Medical workers in Gaza’s remaining hospitals and field clinics are pleading with the international community for desperately needed assistance and an arms embargo against the Israeli occupation, as they continue to work under indescribable conditions — including being deliberately targeted by Israel’s occupying forces. In a conference call with reporters on Monday…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
An Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on Friday killed the eldest daughter and the infant grandson of the prominent Palestinian poet and past Democracy Now! guest Refaat Alareer, who himself was killed in an Israeli airstrike in December. Shaima Refaat Alareer was killed along with her husband and 2-month-old son while sheltering in the building of international relief charity Global Communities.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Asia Pacific Report
An Australian human rights advocacy group for West Papuans has condemned the killing of 5 youths found dead in Dekai, capital of Yahukimo Regency, and have challenged Canberra to reconsider government ties with Indonesian security forces.
Criticising the latest deaths, Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) spokesperson Joe Collins said: “While West Papuans are being killed by the Indonesian security forces, we have Australia and Indonesia sitting down at the ninth bilateral consultation to discuss
bolstering anti-terror cooperation”.
Antara News reports that Indonesia and Australia have committed to continue “anti-terrorism” cooperation through dialogue at bilateral, regional, and multilateral forums, as well as technical cooperation.
Collins said it was time that the Australian Defence Department and DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) “seriously looked at their ties with the Indonesian security forces” and the affect their aid and training had on West Papuans.
The five civilians who were found dead at the mouth of the Brasa River were aged between 15-18 and were members of the Kingmi Papua Church.
According to church officials, the five youths usually delivered food to the village after buying it at Dekai.
Sebby Sambom, a spokesperson for the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) fighting for independence from Indonesia, was reported to have said that the five victims found dead on Friday were not members of the TPNPB.
‘Not ours’ says TPNPB
“They’re not our members. They were purely civilians who wanted to return to their villages and were shot and bombed by the Indonesian military,” he was quoted as saying by the Papuan news outlet Jubi.
The chair of the Yahukimo Church Fellowship (PGGY), Pastor Atias Matuan, named the five dead civilians as Darnius Heluka, Musa Heluka, Man Senik, Yoman Senik and Kaраі Payage.
On Friday, PGGY accompanied the family to collect the bodies at the Yahukimo Regional General Hospital (RSUD).
“Their bodies had gunshot wounds to the stomach, chest and legs,” Pastor Matuan said.
The pastor also reported that TNI officers had a guard post at the Dekai urban boundary, and residents wanting to travel from Dekai were required to report there.
“Residents must report to the security post. If they don’t, they’re considered part of the TPNPB, even though they don’t carry military equipment,” he said.
Victims buried
The five victims were buried at the Kilo Enam Public Cemetery, Dekai, on Friday.
Joe Collins of AWPA said there appeared to be a “total lack of trust” between the security forces and local people in the region.
Pastor Matuan said that his party “had difficulty mediating in the armed conflict because he felt that the Indonesian security forces did not trust the Servant of God”.
President Joe Biden’s assassination of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan was illegal under both U.S. and international law. After the CIA drone strike killed Zawahiri on August 2, Biden declared, “People around the world no longer need to fear the vicious and determined killer.” What we should fear instead is the dangerous precedent set by Biden’s unlawful extrajudicial execution.
In addition to being illegal, the killing of Zawahiri also occurred in a moment when the United Nations had already determined that people in the U.S. had little to fear from him. As a United Nations report released in July concluded, “Al Qaeda is not viewed as posing an immediate international threat from its safe haven in Afghanistan because it lacks an external operational capability and does not currently wish to cause the Taliban international difficulty or embarrassment.”
Just as former president Barack Obama stated that “Justice has been done” after he assassinated Osama bin Laden, Biden said, “Now justice has been delivered” when he announced the assassination of Zawahiri.
Retaliation, however, does not constitute justice.
Targeted, or political, assassinations are extrajudicial executions. They are deliberate and unlawful killings meted out by order of, or with acquiescence of, a government. Extrajudicial executions are implemented outside a judicial framework.
The fact that Zawahiri did not pose an imminent threat is precisely why his assassination was illegal.
Extrajudicial executions are prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States has ratified, making it part of U.S. law under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Article 6 of the ICCPR states, “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” In its interpretation of Article 6, The UN Human Rights Committee opined that all human beings are entitled to the protection of the right to life “without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.”
“Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” tweeted Agnès Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. “Intentionally lethal or potentially lethal force can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.” In order to be lawful, the United States would need to demonstrate that the target “constituted an imminent threat to others,” Callamard said.
Moreover, willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act. A targeted killing is lawful only when deemed necessary to protect life, and no other means (including apprehension or nonlethal incapacitation) is available to protect life.
The drone strike that killed Zawahiri also violated the War Powers Resolution, which lists three situations in which the president can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities:
First, pursuant to a congressional declaration of war, which has not occurred since World War II. Second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” (Zawahiri’s presence in Afghanistan more than 20 years after the September 11, 2001, attacks did not constitute a “national emergency.”) Third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
In 2001, Congress adopted an AUMF that authorized the president to use military force against individuals, groups and countries that had contributed to the 9/11 attacks “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Zawahiri was one of a small circle of people widely believed to have planned the 2001 hijacking of four airplanes, three of which were flown into the Pentagon and World Trade Center buildings. But since he did not pose “an immediate international threat” before the U.S. targeted him for assassination, he should have been arrested and brought to justice in accordance with the law.
The attack against Zawahiri violated Obama’s targeting rules, which required that the target pose a “continuing imminent threat.” Although Donald Trump relaxed Obama’s rules, Biden is conducting a secret review to establish his own standards for targeting killing.
In spite of the Biden administration’s claim that no civilians were killed during the strike on Zawahiri, there has been no independent evidence to support that assertion.
The assassination of Zawahiri came nearly a year after Biden launched an illegal strike as he withdrew U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Ten civilians were killed in that attack. The U.S. Central Command admitted the strike was “a tragic mistake” after an extensive New York Times investigation put a lie to the prior U.S. declaration that it was a “righteous strike.”
Biden declared that although he was withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, he would mount “over-the-horizon” attacks from outside the country even without troops on the ground. We can expect the Biden administration to conduct future illegal drone strikes that kill civilians.
The 2001 AUMF has been used to justify U.S. military actions in 85 countries. Congress must repeal it and replace it with a new AUMF specifically requiring that any use of force comply with U.S. obligations under international law.
In addition, Congress should revisit the War Powers Resolution and explicitly limit the president’s authority to use force to that which is necessary to repel a sudden or imminent attack.
Finally, the United States must end its “global war on terror” once and for all. Drone strikes terrorize and kill countless civilians and make us more vulnerable to terrorism.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Asia Pacific Report newsdesk
As world leaders meet in Glasgow for the UN Climate Summit (COP26), peaceful environmental activists are being threatened, silenced and criminalised around the world.
The host nation Scotland for this year’s meeting is one of many countries where activists are regularly facing rights violations.
New research from the CIVICUS Monitor looks at the common tactics and restrictions being used by governments and private companies to suppress environmental movements.
The research brief “Defenders of our planet: Resilient in the face of restrictions” focuses on three worrying trends:
As the climate crisis intensifies, activists and civil society groups continue to mobilise to hold policymakers and corporate leaders to account.
From Brazil to South Africa, activists are putting their lives on the line to protect lands and to halt the activities of high-polluting industries.
Severe rights abuses
The most severe rights abuses are often experienced by civil society groups that are standing up to the logging, mining and energy giants who are exploiting natural resources and fueling global warming.
As people take to the streets, governments have been instituting bans that criminalise environmental protests. Recently governments have used covid-19 as a pretext to disrupt and break up demonstrations.
Data from the CIVICUS Monitor indicates that the detention of protesters and the use of excessive force by authorities are becoming more prevalent.
In Cambodia in May 2021, three environmental defenders were sentenced to 18 to 20 months in prison for planning a protest against the filling of a lake in the capital.
In Finland in June, more than 100 activists were arrested for participating in a protest calling for the government to take urgent action on climate change.
From authoritarian countries to mature democracies, the research also profiles those who have been put behind bars for peacefully protesting.
“Silencing activists and denying them of their fundamental civic rights is another tactic being used by leaders to evade and delay action on climate change,” says Marianna Belalba Barreto, lead researcher for the CIVICUS Monitor.
Troubling indicator
“Criminalising nonviolent protests has become a troubling indicator that governments are not committed to saving the planet.”
The report shows that many of the measures being deployed by governments to restrict rights are not compatible with international law. Examples of courts and legislative bodies reversing attempts to criminalise nonviolent climate protests are few and far between.
Despite the increased risks and restrictions facing environmental campaigners, the report also shows that a wide range of campaigns have scored important victories, including the closure of mines and numerous hazardous construction projects.
Equally significant has been the rise of climate litigation by activist groups.
As authorities take activists to court for exercising their fundamental right to protest, activist groups have successfully filed lawsuits against governments and companies in more than 25 countries for failing to act on climate change.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.