HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH'S – Weekly newspaper on web Spreading the light of humanity & freedom Editor : nagaraj.M.R.................vol.2 issue.34...................... 04/11/2006
Editorial : HUMAN ORGANS FOR
- An appeal to honourable chief justice of
The role of a trustee / guardian of a property is not just to enjoy the profits , is not just to have a right over the property but to safeguard , up-keep & maintain the said property till it is passed on to the final beneficiary. In this case , the collective human beings in
The trustee must safeguard the trusted property & maintain it , instead if he joins his hands with the criminals , vandalisers & destroys the said property , the trustee looses all his moral & legal rights over the property.
The GOI instead of protecting the human rights , fundamental rights , protecting & up-keeping the health of it’s human capital has failed to provide even basic necessities of a living being. On the contrary , GOI has joined hands with criminals & snatched away remnants of life sustenance from the human capital. In India , GOI has teamed up with criminals - police who falsely implicate & kill innocents using 3rd degree torture , manufacturers of adulterated / harmful food products who slowly disable & kill innocent consumers , manufacturers of fake medicines who slowly disable & kill innocent patients , the govt officials who siphon-off food grains meant for FOOD FOR WORK programme , the govt doctors who siphon-off free medicines meant for poor , etc
As a result , millions of people in India barely survive on a single piece meal per day , millions lack access to potable drinking water & health care , hundreds are dying due to starvation , mal-nutrition , food poisoning , wrong medication , etc. numerous innocent people are suffering 3rd degree torture in police stations & many are getting killed in lock-ups.
Even when these crimes are brought to the notice of GOI, instead of protecting , safe guarding the people , it neglects it’s duties & indirectly aid the criminals. Thereby , GOI has lost it’s moral & legal right over the physical bodies of living persons , GOI has lost it’s trusteeship.
In this backdrop , as a human being is left to fend for himself , to get out of his personal hardships a human being at his option can sell his own body’s organs or commit suicide or can ask a doctor to kill him on grounds of mercy. It will be just & legal , as GOI has failed in it’s duties as a trustee.
Hereby , HRW appeals to honourable supreme court of India , to order GOI & other state governments to perform it’s duties as a trustee of human capital or to declare the sale of human organs by the person himself , suicide & mercy killing as LEGAL.
JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.
HUMAN ORGANS FOR
One eye & One kidney for sale. Minimum reserve price Rupees ten lakhs exclusive of taxes. Insurance cover for double the amount must be provided to the organ’s seller by the buyer , right from acceptance of bid till his lifetime. 10% of the bid amount must be paid to the prime minister of
AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF
Dear Prime Minister,
I am writing to urge the immediate and unconditional release of prisoners of conscience Nguyen Vu Binh and Truong Quoc Huy.
These men have only exercised their legitimate right to freedom of expression through the Internet; Nguyen Vu Binh by communicating with others outside Viet Nam about human rights and corruption and Truong Quoc Huy by taking part in an Internet chat room and expressing support for other dissidents advocating political reform.
Your government has said many times that Vietnamese citizens have the right to freedom of expression. Arresting and imprisoning people like Nguyen Vu Binh and Truong Quoc Huy directly contradicts this.
I call on you to uphold the rights of all Vietnamese citizens to freedom of expression,and association, to release Nguyen Vu Binh and Truong Quoc Huy immediately and stop the harassment and arrest of countless others who have a valid and positive contribution to make towards the progress of
- a human rights scandal Guantánamo Bay
The unlawful detention of "enemy combatants" at the US Naval Base at
When I hear US officials describe the suicides of three Muslim prisoners at Guantánamo Bay last Saturday as ‘asymmetric warfare’ and ‘a good PR move’, I know it’s time to close that camp – not just because of what it’s doing to the prisoners but because of how it is dehumanizing the American captors.
The continuing indefinite detention of some 460 people in Guantánamo remains a violation of international law, a distressing fact in their and their families’ lives, a stain upon the United States, and a contradiction of the US administration’s National Security Strategy, which takes the position that respect for the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" is the route to security not an obstacle to it.
Amnesty International deeply regrets that it took four years and required court action before the
- Were there ever people held at the base who were not in Department of Defense custody, who have not shown up on the Pentagon’s list? For example, as already noted, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operated its own area at the Guantánamo facility. Did the CIA only ever interrogate those in Defense Department custody? Were there any detainees held in exclusive CIA custody, or perhaps later transferred from the CIA to the Department of Defense? The 2005 Schmidt/Furlow report into FBI allegations of abuse in Guantánamo said that it found no evidence of "ghost detainees" having been held at the base, but there is no indication that the CIA was included within the scope of the investigation.(4) In the earlier Church report, the CIA did not provide any information on its activities in Guantánamo, Afghanistan or at undisclosed locations.(5)
- In addition to the inadequacy of investigations into alleged abuses by US personnel, to Amnesty International’s knowledge, none of the military investigations conducted to date has looked into allegations that detainees have been ill-treated by or with the involvement of agents of other countries while held in Guantánamo.(6) The US administration has never refuted allegations first raised by Amnesty International in May 2004 that agents of the Chinese government visited Guantánamo in September 2002 and participated in interrogations of ethnic Uighur detainees held there.(7) This allegation was again raised in federal court in 2005 and again the government did not refute it.(8) It is alleged that during the agents’ visit, the detainees were subjected to intimidation and threats(9), and to interrogation techniques such as environmental (temperature) manipulation, forced sitting for many hours, and sleep deprivation, some of which was on the instruction of the Chinese delegation. Similarly Omar Deghayes has claimed that he was twice interrogated by Libyan agents in Guantánamo, on 9 and 11 September 2004. He alleged that the
military authorities took him to an interrogation room with the air-conditioning on maximum and left him there for several hours, shackled and freezing cold. Eventually, at around midnight on 9 September 2004, four Libyan agents and three US personnel in civilian clothes entered the room. He said he was interrogated for around three hours by the Libyan agents, and again two days later. The agents allegedly made veiled threats of violence and death against him if he should ever be returned to US , and showed him pictures of severely beaten Libyan dissidents. Amnesty International has flight records showing that a Gulfstream V jet, registration N8068V (previously registered as N379P), flew direct from Tripoli in Libya to Guantánamo Bay the day before Omar Deghayes says he was first interrogated by the Libyan agents.(10) In another case, Ala Abdel Maqsud Muhammad Salim, an Egyptian national, has alleged that he was interrogated on a number of occasions in late 2004 by a delegation from Egypt. These Egyptian agents threatened him that he would be "disappeared" or subjected to other harm after he was returned to Egypt.(11) During these interrogations he alleges that he was subjected to cruel use of shackles and chains and to environmental (temperature) manipulation via the air conditioning. Libya
USAhas not answered the question of how many children it has held in and Guantánamo. The authorities have apparently limited their definition of child to someone who is under 16, contradicting most international legal standards which hold that children are those who are under 18 years old and subject to particular protections.(12) Research suggests that there may have been at least 17 detainees who were taken to Guantánamo when they were under 18 years old.(13) Afghanistan
The latest questions to be raised in relation to the Guantánamo detainees surround the apparent suicides of three of them, Saudi nationals Mane’i bin Shaman bin Turki al-Habardi al-‘Otaybi and Yassar Talal ‘Abdullah Yahia al-Zahrani, who was reportedly 17 when he was taken into custody, and Yemeni national Salah ‘Ali ‘Abdullah Ahmed al-Salami. All three had previously participated in hunger-strikes and subjected to force feeding. All were held in a maximum security section of the detention camp. There are no records publicly available of the men’s Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Amnesty International is disturbed by the Guantánamo Commander’s description of the deaths as acts of "asymmetric warfare", by which he was tending to prejudge the outcome of the Naval Criminal Investigation Service investigation into the deaths.(14) Amnesty International believes that the military and the executive, as the authorities that have instigated and maintained a detention regime that has caused serious psychological suffering, and as they continue to rely on the war paradigm that they have used to justify rejection of fundamental human rights law and standards, will be unable to conduct the necessary investigation into the deaths and be seen by the outside world to have done so. Amnesty International reiterates its call for a full independent and impartial investigation into these deaths.(15)
Amnesty International urges the President to rescind his 13 November 2001 Military Order establishing military commissions and authorizing detention without charge or trial. The organization notes that in its responses to the Committee Against Torture, the
A framework for closing Guantánamo
I’d like to end Guantánamo. I’d like it to be over with. One of the things we will do is we’ll send people back to their home countries.... There are some who need to be tried in
President George W. Bush, 21 June 2006(16)
In its 19 May 2006 conclusions, the Committee against Torture called for the closure of the Guantánamo detention camp. Following the reported suicides of the three detainees on 10 June 2006, five UN human rights experts reiterated their call for urgent closure of the facility.(17) It is these calls for closure of Guantánamo which have drawn a series of comments from President Bush and a number of officials in the
(a) Return. The
Edited , printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ # LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , LAXMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL , MYSORE – 570017 INDIA……… cell : 9341820313 home page : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw , http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/ http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ , http://hrwpaper.blogspot.com/ contact : firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com A member of AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA