Friday, May 30, 2008

AFGHANISTAN: “I sold my daughter to feed the rest of my family”


Photo: Parwin Arzo/IRIN

Sayed Ali said he had to sell his daughter to save the
rest of his family from starvation

SHEBERGHAN, 18 May 2008 (IRIN) - Sayed Ali (not his real name) said he sold his 11-year-old daughter, Rabia, for US$2,000 to a man in Sheberghan city, Jawzjan Province in northern Afghanistan to feed his wife and three younger children.

[Listen to a radio version of this report in Dari]

With food prices in Afghanistan having soared over the past few months and the 40-year-old father unable to find work, he said he had no other choice but to sell his daughter to save his family from starvation.

“Even animals don’t sell their children, because they love them and want to die for them, not to mention human beings. For too many days I stood next to roads and asked people for work, but always ended up disappointed. I couldn’t go home empty-handed and disappoint my starving children, so I used to scavenge in garbage and collect leftover food.

“I would lie to my family and say I bought them food from the market. But now it’s even hard to find anything edible in the garbage because of [increasing] food prices. People now eat all their food because it’s very expensive and also the numbers of those who scavenge in garbage has increased.

“Because I am illiterate, no one will give me a job. I am illiterate because of war and poverty. I didn’t go to school because my parents wanted me to work. My children also don't go to school and they’ll also be brought up illiterate like me.

"How can
someone sell
his own child?
It’s like selling
Your eyes or
selling your heart!"

“How can someone sell his own child? It’s like selling your eyes or selling your heart!
“As no one would give me work I had no other option but to sell my lovely daughter. I sold her only to save the rest of my family. I sold her only to buy food for my younger children who otherwise would have died from hunger.

“I know people will say I am a cruel and merciless father who sold his own child, but those who say so don't know my hardship and have never felt the hunger that my family suffers.

“I know other poor people who don’t have children and say, if necessary, they will blow themselves up [in a suicide attack] and kill other people in order to feed their families.

“I hope the government will hear my voice and help people like me to find jobs and feed our families.”

Afghanistan: Karzai Should Suspend Death Penalty

Supreme Court Announces 100 Death Sentences

(New York, April 16, 2008) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai should suspend the death penalty and reject signing execution orders for about 100 prisoners whose death sentences were announced by the Supreme Court on April 16, Human Rights Watch said today.

The Supreme Court’s
blanket confirmation of a
hundred death sentences
shows disturbing disregard
for the right to life.

Elaine Pearson, Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch

Contribute

Free Email Newsletter

Supreme Court officials told the media those sentenced to death had been convicted of serious crimes, such as kidnapping, hostage taking, armed robbery, murder, and rape. Legal experts and human rights organizations in Afghanistan have long expressed concerns that international due process and fair trial standards are generally not met in capital cases.


“The Supreme Court’s blanket confirmation of a hundred death sentences shows disturbing disregard for the right to life,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch. “The Afghan justice system still has a long way to go to respect the basic rights of the accused.”

Under the Afghan criminal procedure code, death sentences handed down by local criminal courts are reviewed by an appeals court, and then, if the sentence stands, must be confirmed by the Supreme Court. Confirmed death sentences must then be endorsed by the Afghan president.

Legal experts in Afghanistan told Human Rights Watch that in a number of these criminal trials, the cases were not properly investigated and the courts did not disclose crucial evidence leading to convictions.

Previously, prisoners in Afghanistan have been executed with little or no warning. On October 7, 2007, the authorities executed by firing squad 15 prisoners who were on death row at Pule Charkhi prison. Neither the prisoners nor their relatives were informed in advance about the executions. All prisoners were on death row for crimes that had typically been commuted to prison sentences in the past.

Human Rights Watch urged President Hamid Karzai not to sign the execution orders, and instead to announce a moratorium on the death penalty.

“President Karzai should suspend the death penalty immediately,” said Pearson. “More mass executions will be a huge setback for the rule of law in Afghanistan.”

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as an inherently cruel and unusual form of punishment and a violation of fundamental human rights.

Afghanistan: Reinstate Malalai Joya in Parliament

Suspension of Female MP One Year Ago Is Setback for Democracy

(New York, May 21, 2008) – One year after her illegal suspension, the Afghan parliament should reinstate Malalai Joya to office, Human Rights Watch said today.

Contribute

Free Email Newsletter

On May 21, 2007, the lower house of the Afghan parliament, the Wolesi Jirga, voted to suspend Malalai Joya, a female MP elected from Farah province. Malalai was accused of insulting the parliament and suspended until the end of her term in 2009.



Malalai’s suspension occurred after she appeared in a television interview comparing the parliament to an animal stable. Malalai told Human Rights Watch that her remarks were edited out of context. She said that her statement divided parliamentarians into two groups – one of which was working to uphold democratic principles while the other was undermining them, thereby serving the Afghan population even less than animals in a stable. Malalai has since received numerous death threats by phone and “night letters” (posted threats) and now lives in hiding. She receives no security protection from parliament or the government.


“Afghanistan is requesting billions of dollars in assistance from donors next month and presenting itself as an emerging democracy,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “If Malalai Joya remains suspended for exercising her right to free expression and has to keep moving around because of threats for which the government does nothing, what does this say about the state of human rights and democracy?”

Malalai is an outspoken human rights activist who has publicly criticized warlords and drug barons in Afghanistan. At 29, she is the youngest member of the Wolesa Jirga. In 2003, she gained international attention for speaking out publicly against warlords elected to the constitutional assembly and involved in drafting the Afghan constitution. Two years later, she was the top vote-getter from Farah province in Afghanistan’s parliamentary elections.

Since 2003, Malalai has received many death threats. She moves from house to house on a daily basis to avoid attacks. In 2007, she was verbally threatened and physically attacked during sessions of parliament. Since her suspension, she has continued to criticize warlords in the Afghan parliament despite the concerns for her safety. Though Malalai filed a complaint over her suspension, the courts have not taken action on her case.
Malalai recently told Human Rights Watch:


    “After I was expelled from parliament, my life became even more dangerous and I received numerous death threats. Even a member of parliament said in front of all on the day when they voted against me, that he will eliminate me if I will not be silent.”
    “Instead of branding her a criminal, the Afghan government should be demanding that parliament reinstate Malalai and arresting the people threatening her life,” said Adams. “This is a real test for President Hamid Karzai to show donors that women – even outspoken women – have a role to play in Afghan politics and in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.”

The forgotten kid of Guantánamo

A teenager captured in Afghanistan and shipped to the U.S. prison remained unknown to the world for five years. Now he's being tried as an adult.

By Stacy Sullivan, US media director

Published in Salon.com

May. 27, 2008 When Mohammed Jawad, a 23-year-old Afghan detainee, was summoned to appear before the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay for his arraignment in March, he told his military handlers that he would not go. After being held for more than five years here, he didn't believe he could get a fair hearing from the U.S. military.

Contribute

Free Email Newsletter

But appearing at arraignments at Guantánamo is mandatory, so as has been done with others, military personnel forcefully extracted Jawad from his cell and brought him to court in shackles. Sitting before the judge in his orange jumpsuit, the color reserved for uncooperative detainees, Jawad buried his face into his hands and announced that he would boycott future proceedings -- a right the commissions allow.


So this month, when Jawad was scheduled to appear at the courthouse for another pre-trial hearing, nobody expected him to show up. But as a cluster of journalists, observers from nongovernmental organizations (including me, as a representative of Human Rights Watch) and military personnel gathered in the courtroom, Jawad, now dressed in khaki, a color reserved for more cooperative detainees, was escorted inside by two guards and quietly took a seat beside his defense counsel and an interpreter. Although he appeared uneasy and nervous, he was markedly calmer than at his arraignment.

Jawad put on the headset that would allow him to listen to a translation of court proceedings (something he refused to do during his March hearing) and politely asked the military judge, Col. Peter Brownback, if he could turn around to look at the audience in the courtroom. The judge agreed, and Jawad turned around to face us, revealing a wispy beard that only partly covers his post-adolescent acne.

The U.S. government claims that Mohammed Jawad is an unlawful enemy combatant who tried to murder two U.S. soldiers and their translator in Afghanistan by tossing a grenade into their vehicle in December 2002.

But Maj. David Frakt, his military-appointed attorney, argues that Jawad -- who was a teenager of 16 or 17 at the time of his alleged offense (Jawad doesn't know his birth date) -- is a victim. He says Jawad was a homeless teenager who was drugged and forced to fight with Afghan militia, then abused by the United States, which transported him halfway around the world and imprisoned him at Guantánamo for five years without charge and is now using him as a guinea pig to test a new system of military justice with no regard to his initial status as a juvenile.

When Frakt arrived at Guantánamo to meet Jawad, he said he found a profoundly disturbed young man who was reluctant to talk. "Jawad is in an extremely fragile mental state," Frakt said in an interview following the hearing. "He has been here for so long -- he has essentially grown up in Guantánamo. He has lost track of time, lost touch with reality, and suffers from severe depression. And he doesn't believe he can get justice from the military commissions."

Both U.S. and international law requires governments to provide children with special safeguards and care that take into account their vulnerability and culpability as children. They are supposed to be housed separately from adults, allowed to contact family members, provided with educational opportunities, and given prompt legal assistance.
The United States has acknowledged holding eight teenagers at Guantánamo, but although some of them were given special housing and educational opportunities and were eventually released, the U.S. has ignored Jawad's status as a juvenile.

Jawad's decision to attend commission hearings this month appears to owe much to his newly appointed military defense counsel, Maj. Frakt, a law professor in the Navy Reserves who was called up from Western State University in California to represent the young detainee (now 22 or 23) just a few days earlier. (Jawad's previous defense counsel left after his reserve duty ended in late March.) With the help of an Afghan interpreter -- an elderly man from the same tribe as Jawad who managed to establish a rapport with the detainee -- Frakt was able to persuade Jawad to appear before the court so that he can "challenge the legality and legitimacy of the military commissions" and possibly argue for an improvement in the conditions in which Jawad is being held.

Jawad is not the only detainee at Guantánamo to be charged before the military commissions for an offense allegedly committed as a juvenile. Omar Khadr, a Canadian charged with throwing a hand grenade that killed a U.S. soldier, was 15 at the time of his alleged crime. Khadr's story has made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world. He is even the subject of a new book, "Guantanamo's Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr," by Michelle Shephard. Lawyers in Canada have sued the Canadian government for access to documents on his case, and child rights groups have embraced his cause.

But Jawad is an illiterate Afghan from a poor Pashtun family with no ties to the Afghan government. According to Frakt, Jawad's father died during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. His mother remarried, and the family fled to Pakistan. Jawad spent his childhood years in a refugee camp and was educated at a local madrassa where all the teaching is conducted orally. He never learned to read or write.

Frakt says that when Jawad was 13, his family kicked him out and told him he needed to find a job. He spent much of those years hanging around a mosque looking for work. Sometime in 2002, Jawad was told he could have a job helping eradicate land mines in Afghanistan, so he returned to his native country. Once he arrived, however, Frakt says he was recruited by the local militia, drugged and forced into combat. Soon after, he was arrested by the Afghan police and handed over to the Americans.

Unlike most of the detainees at Guantánamo, Jawad was never provided a "habeas counsel," that is, a civilian lawyer to file a petition of habeas corpus on his behalf. Until he was charged this year, he was virtually unknown to the world.

Frakt said that his meetings with Jawad have been difficult, in part because Jawad doesn't understand the legal process, and in part because Jawad doesn't trust anyone in a U.S. military uniform, which Frakt is obligated to wear when he visits his client. "It is difficult to establish a trusting relationship with a detainee who has suffered so much and been detained by the U.S. military for five years," Frakt said. "He has a natural distrust of me, and he is not sure that I am here to help him."

For now, Jawad has agreed to allow Frakt to represent him in a limited capacity -- to challenge the legality and legitimacy of the commissions. Frakt hopes he will be able to persuade his client to allow him to give Jawad a more complete representation in a case that points to crucial questions about American justice in the war on terror.

From the government's point of view, Jawad's is a seemingly straightforward case. The prosecution has located eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the Afghan teenager throw the grenade. In addition, it says it has a signed confession from Jawad.

But Frakt says the case isn't nearly as straightforward as the government alleges. He says that the prosecution chose to prosecute Jawad because it viewed his as a "sexy" case -- Jawad is a defendant with "blood on his hands," in the government's view, which is something the American public understands better than something more abstract, like charges of material support for terrorism.

While Frakt acknowledges that the prosecution has witnesses who saw his client throw the grenade, he says the defense has also located witnesses who say the teenager appeared to be drugged at the time. As for the confession, Frakt says it is in Farsi -- a language Jawad does not speak. And the "signature" on it is in the form of a thumbprint, because Jawad does not read or write.

Frakt hopes to be able to make these arguments on Jawad's behalf if or when the case goes to trial. In the meantime, Frakt says has serious reservations about Jawad's ability to aid in his defense because of his fragile mental state -- something that was evident when Jawad himself addressed the court this month.

When the judge asked Jawad if he would like to make a statement, the young man spoke for about 20 minutes, saying that he didn't understand why he was at Guantánamo and why he was being punished. As he described his ordeal -- of being flown from Afghanistan to Guantánamo, locked in a steel cage, moved from cell to cell in the middle of the night, and sometimes being kept in a cell that had bright lights on 24 hours a day -- he said he had lost track of time and couldn't remember when or for how long he was held in each camp. Sometimes he stopped to rub his head and seemed to forget what he was saying in mid-sentence.

When Jawad finished his statement, Frakt requested that his client be taken out of the maximum security facility where he is currently housed -- where he is confined to a windowless cell at least 22 hours a day -- and moved to a "quiet, restful place where he can rehabilitate." He also requested that Jawad be examined by a mental health professional.


The judge told Frakt to put the request in writing and said that he would consider it. But it remains unclear whether the judge at the military commissions has the authority to order military officials at the detention facility at Guantánamo to do anything.

The next hearings in Jawad's case are scheduled for June 24-25. Frakt is hoping Jawad will participate.

Inside the Guantánamo terror trials

A bruised-up detainee rejects the proceedings, and his lawyer discovers that military officials withheld records about his client's mental health.

By Carol Chodroff, advocacy director, US Program

Published in Salon.com

May. 24, 2008 As a former federal defender, I've been to countless court hearings, but Wednesday was the first time I had to take a speedboat, equipped with two M2 50-caliber machine guns, to get to court. That's because Wednesday was also my first experience with the military commissions at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, where the U.S. government is putting 15 terror suspects on trial.

Contribute

Free Email Newsletter

The first hearing was an arraignment of Mohammad Kamin, a thin, frail Afghan, estimated to be about 30 years old, whom the United States accuses of providing material support for terrorism by receiving arms training at an al-Qaida camp in Afghanistan for several months in 2003.


Although Kamin was apprehended five years ago, he was not charged with a crime until March 2008. Wednesday was his first judicial hearing.

It was also the first time the judge, Air Force Col. W. Thomas Cumbie, presided over a military commission, and the first time for both the prosecutor, Maj. Omar Ashmawy, and the military defense counsel, Lt. Richard Federico, to appear at one.

The hearing was supposed to begin at 9 a.m., but Kamin apparently wanted to boycott he hearing. So Judge Cumbie signed a "forcible extraction" order authorizing guards to forcibly bring Kamin to court. Nongovernmental organizations such as Human Rights Watch are forbidden any access to the camps where detainees are held, and we were not permitted to witness Kamin's transfer from camp to court. By 11:30 a.m., Kamin was seated in handcuffs and shackles, staring at his lap, with cuts and scrapes on his neck and chin, and a swollen right eye. Cumbie said that during his forced transport that morning, Kamin was uncooperative and tried to spit on and bite one of the guards.

When given a chance to address the court, Kamin said he did not want to participate in the hearings and did not want to be represented by an attorney because he didn't believe he could get justice at Guantánamo.

"I don't accept these charges. There is no justice with me," he told the court, through an interpreter. "I am oppressed. I have been brought by force. I didn't want to come to this court. They have been cruel to me -- your strong people."

Before being transported to Guantánamo, Kamin was detained at the U.S. military base at Bagram, in Afghanistan -- which, like Guantánamo, has been criticized for its abusive treatment of prisoners. "I came from Bagram on my own will," he said. "There were a lot of problems in Bagram. They told me in Cuba they would help detainees. I didn't know things would go from bad to worse."

During the hearing, Federico, Kamin's defense counsel, said he had learned for the first time on Tuesday that authorities at Guantánamo were withholding records indicating Kamin might suffer from mental health issues.

Cumbie ordered the government to make those records available. When asked to broaden that order to include medical and dental records, the judge replied: "Let me think that one over and get back to you."

Federico raised some of the problems confronting military defense lawyers before the commission: "We are faced with huge obstacles in this system in trying to establish any kind of rapport when detainees are held for years without charge, facing very difficult situations, and their lawyers are finally sent in, wearing the same uniform as their jailers."


Federico argued he lacks the authority to represent someone who declines representation. After taking a recess to "think for a few minutes," Cumbie returned, emphasized his own qualifications as judge under the commission rules, and ordered Federico to represent Kamin -- at least for the time being.

Federico later indicated he might travel to Indiana to seek guidance from the ethics committee of his home state bar to determine his obligations in this case.

Monday, May 26, 2008

"Strategic Incoherence and Taliban Resurgence in Afghanistan"

Mark Schneider in The Huffington Post

20 May 2008
The Huffington Post

The recent attack on a military parade in central Kabul attended by President Karzai and Afghan and international dignitaries is a disturbing reminder that insurgents in Afghanistan are active, determined and dangerous. Unless the international community starts speaking with a single voice in pressing for an end to corruption and starts overcoming its own military command divisions, containing the insurgency is going to be even harder.

The Bush administration has increased the number of US troops to nearly 30,000, and NATO allies have deployed almost as many. But this is not just about numbers, too many countries have their own restrictions on where those troops can be deployed and what they can do once they get there. However, the idea that military might alone will turn back the tide of the Taliban -- the insurgent group in whose name most of the violence is carried out -- and their al Qaeda facilitators reflects the same false reading of the lessons of counter-insurgency that has persisted for the past six years.

Suicide bombings are up 600 per cent since 2005, a clear sign that the counter-insurgency strategy is failing. Even more critical, it is a sure sign that the state-building venture of the Karzai government is flawed. The reason? From the beginning there have been too few troops and too few resources to destroy al Qaeda at its roots and prevent Taliban remnants from reconstituting themselves. There has also been far too much corruption.

The U.S. instead opted for military and political "light" footprints, co-opting local -- and all too frequently corrupt -- factional leaders rather than deploying international troops. The Bush administration wanted to do Afghanistan reconstruction on the cheap while its leadership was obsessing with Iraq. And for six years, the failure of the Pakistan government to close down Taliban sanctuaries allowed them to recruit new cohorts, train them in terror tactics and provide weapons to attack in Afghanistan.
Security is critical to reconstruction -- but additional international military forces need to form part of a comprehensive civilian/military peacebuilding strategy that has both unity of command and unity of effort. U.S. military forces alone report to at least three different commands, in addition to NATO. The absence of a unified strategy with timetables, resource commitments and an end to caveats and conditions will simply lead to repeats of past errors.

The international civilian communities should stop sending conflicting messages about narcotics trafficking, police reform, and governance. While important initiatives such as replacing the corrupt police force have gotten underway, this must be ongoing with rigorous oversight if it is to be successful and sustainable. And nothing similar has been started for the judiciary or the prisons, which leaves the criminal justice system weak and dysfunctional. Nor has there been the kind of massive investment in rural infrastructure and reconstruction that is needed for a nation which is 70 per cent rural. The catch-22 in today's Afghanistan is that insecurity in the heartland of the insurgency means that reconstruction is haphazard and inconsistent. Outside the conflict zones, where reconstruction would be easier and help to prevent the spread of the insurgency, there has not been a comprehensive nationwide strategy for reconstruction. Hopefully, international donors will come together in Paris in a few weeks to review the record, and take the opportunity to make fundamental course corrections.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has found that those same insurgency battlegrounds produced the bulk of Afghanistan's 2007 poppy crops, which exported 93% of the world's opium. The UN found that nearly all poppy farmers in the southern and western regions were forced to pay taxes on opium to Taliban and local militia commanders.

Yet, the Afghan Government has not been held accountable to its own pledges on disarmament, transitional justice and anti-corruption. One example was the Special Consultative Board for Senior Government Appointments, which was created to vet senior level appointments to the central government, and judiciary, as well as provincial governors, chiefs of police, district administrators and provincial heads of security. Its members were appointed with much fanfare - as meeting the first benchmark of the Afghanistan Compact -- but the board has never properly functioned, has inadequate staff and is rarely consulted.

Despite the shortfalls, the courage and determination of many Afghans still give hope that stabilization and reconstruction can succeed. It will take time and it will take a new determination to require the Afghan government to show greater transparency, engage in institution-building and abide by the rule of law. The new democratic civilian Pakistan government, , is likely to be a better bet in the long term to keep Afghan Taliban command structures from operating quite so freely in Quetta and Peshawar. The international community must, however, ensure that military-led negotiations with militants in FATA do not empower home-grown extremists, and undermine efforts to place this region under state control. Long-term support for democratic institutions from the U.S. and the international community in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is essential.

The costs of failing to increase resources and invest new energy into rebuilding Afghanistan would be unacceptably high: a return to civil war with factions divided along regional and ethnic lines; a narco-state with institutions controlled by organized criminal gangs and terrorists; a Pashtun-dominated south largely abandoned to extremist lawlessness and increased intervention by regional powers

No one can afford any of those outcomes.

Mark Schneider is a senior vice president of the International Crisis Group.