Not a Marc Harris fan
(a response to a letter in the last issue)
Señor Rendon:
It is plain to see that Sr. Harris is again using either an alias, an employee
(Adam Starchild or Okke Okenstein) or has stumbled onto a person of diminished
capacity. The Internal Revenue Code of the country Sr. Harris is still a passport
holding member of as well as the majority of his clients have either had their
money stolen or been aided and abetted in committing a felony. What part of
this don't you understand?
Carl Dilley
Postal system causes qualms
I just recently discovered your newspaper. Very informative! Keep up the
good work. The mail system in Colon is deplorable. Seems as if they steal
everything. The post offices have flyers stating it is prohibited to send
cash, bank notes, jewelry, merchandise of any value etc. Seems as if the supervisors
and the postal employees have a good thing going on. Please could you tell
me if there is an alternative mail system. Also do you plan on some time in
the near future having a classified section. I am intrested in renting an
aprtment in the "Areas Revertidas" such as Balboa, Curundu, Corozal,
Cardenas, etc.
Currently retired and want to move back to Paradise. But I have been warned
that living in Colon can be dangerous to one's health - with all the unemployment
they steal everything that is not nailed down. Former Colonense Eleanor Harshaw
Ohio
(Editor's note: There is an alternative private mail system in Panama,
run by companies like Aerocasillas and Mail Boxes Etc., which will provide
you with a Miami mailing address and a mailbox in Panama for a small fee.
There is plenty of real estate for rent in Panama, but in the Reverted Areas
it's mostly for sale. Many sources tell us that ARI is not to be trusted in
real estate transactions, so at the very least you should not believe any
real estate pitch that they make if it's not made in writing.
We do have classifieds now, plus very reasonable rates for display ads.)
Human Rights Watch's open letter to President Bush
November 15, 2001
President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush,
We are writing to express our profound concern with the new
Executive Order on the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens
in the War Against Terrorism, issued on November 13, 2001. We recognize that
the existing state of emergency in the United States permits certain derogations
of internationally protected human rights.
Nevertheless, the broad reach of the executive order sacrifices
fundamental rights to personal liberty and to a fair trial that go far beyond
what is permitted even in times of crisis.
The United States has routinely condemned such gross transgressions
of basic due process rights when committed by other governments because they
violate binding international law to which the US government and over 140
other governments have subscribed. For example, the United States has:
- criticized the military courts in Peru that convicted US
citizen Lori Berenson for terrorism without adequate due process; indeed,
the State Department called on Peru to retry the case "in open civilian
court with full rights of legal defense, in accordance with international
judicial norms."
- condemned Nigeria for convicting and executing author and
environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists after a trial
before a special military court appointed by the government.
- criticized the manner in which military tribunals are used
to try accused terrorists in Egypt, pointing out in its most recent annual
report on human rights in that country that "military courts do not ensure
civilian defendants' due process before an independent tribunal.
- expressed great concern about trials of foreigners, including
Americans, for espionage before closed tribunals in Russia.
If the Executive Order is implemented, it will do permanent
damage to the United States' ability to champion human rights and the rule
of law around the world. It will undercut the US government's efforts to protect
the rights of US citizens before foreign tribunals. And it will undermine
the human rights standards that you have said are key to distinguishing terrorism
from lawful conduct.
The Executive Order raises important concerns regarding US
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which the US ratified in 1992. Article 4 of the ICCPR does permit
a state to take measures derogating from its obligations under the Covenant
in time of public emergency that threatens the life of the nation and is officially
proclaimed. The US declaration of a national emergency on September 14 may
be considered to have met that condition, although to our knowledge the required
formal notification of the UN Secretary-General has not occurred.
However, a state's ability to derogate from the ICCPR is not
unlimited.
Derogation is never permitted from certain rights, such as
the right to be free from torture (article 7) and the prohibition of ex post
facto laws (article 15). Otherwise, a state may derogate from its obligations
under the ICCPR only "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies
of the situation" and provided that such measures are not inconsistent
with its other obligations under international law. The Human Rights Committee,
the international body charged with interpreting the ICCPR and monitoring
compliance with it, states in its General Comment on article 4 that "This
condition requires that States parties provide careful justification not only
for their decision to proclaim a state of emergency but also for any specific
measures based on such a proclamation. [T]hey must be able to justify not
only that such a situation constitutes a threat to the life of the nation,
but also that all their measures derogating from the Covenant are strictly
required by the exigencies of the situation."
The US must thus meet a high burden to show that the rights
circumscribed under the Executive Order meet the standard for derogating from
rights under the ICCPR. As discussed below, the Executive Order fails to meet
this burden as it sharply curtails the right to liberty and security of the
person under article 9 and the right to a fair trial under article 14. These
rights not only are found in international law but are central to the fundamental
rights of due process in the United States.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON
Section 2 of the Executive Order permits the arrest and detention
of persons on grounds that are vague and overbroad. It allows taking a person
into custody if the President has "reason to believe" that the individual
took part in "acts of international terrorism" against the United
States. Because neither the meaning of "international terrorism"
nor the nature of proscribed complicity is defined, the Executive Order is
an extreme derogation of the ICCPR article 9 prohibition against arbitrary
arrest and detention. Indeed, given the possibility that these provisions
could be interpreted to proscribe conduct that was not already criminal, the
Executive Order could even run afoul of the ICCPR's nonderogable prohibition
of ex post facto criminal laws.
In addition, Section 3 of the Executive Order risks rendering
ICCPR article 9 effectively meaningless by providing for conditions of detention
that are distinct from those under existing US law.
Most significant are not the protections afforded detainees
including humane treatment, adequate food and water, access to health care
but those fundamental protections left off the list. There is no requirement,
for example, that persons detained under the Executive Order be told the reason
for their arrest or be promptly informed of charges against them; that persons
deprived of their liberty be brought before a judicial authority who can decide
on the lawfulness of their detention; or that those unlawfully arrested or
detained shall have an enforceable right to compensation. Effectively the
Executive Order allows for the arrest and indefinite detention of persons
without charge and without legal recourse should they be unlawfully held.
This is a clear abrogation of the fundamental right to liberty and security
of person, well beyond the derogation permitted under article 4 of the ICCPR.
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Human Rights Watch believes the open-ended provisions for the
trial of persons under the Executive Order also exceed the limits of acceptable
derogation of the right to a fair trial under international law.
Although the mere establishment of a military commission and
various procedures set out in the Executive Order are not necessarily in violation
of international law, the absence of key provisions regarding certain fundamental
rights is a basis for extreme concern.
Section 4 of the Executive Order states that at a minimum all
trials shall be "full and fair," but leaves the specifics open to
future orders and regulations. For instance, there are no provisions for determining
whether and to what extent trials should be public, nor even a requirement
that judgments be made public. There is no requirement of a presumption of
innocence, or that defendants have access to the evidence submitted against
them, or even that proof of guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is left undetermined to what extent defendants will have access to legal
counsel of their choosing, whether they will be able to communicate with counsel,
and whether adequate time and facilities will be provided for a defense. No
protection is provided against forced confessions.
Section 7 of the Executive Order states that a terrorist suspect
"shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding,
directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on
the individual's behalf" before a US or any other court. Indeed, there
is not even a provision for appellate review by a separate military commission
panel, only non-judicial review by the President or the Secretary of Defense
as the President's designate. This denies the defendant the right to an appeal
provided under international law, which is especially troubling because the
Executive Order expressly contemplates military commissions handing down death
sentences. It also denies the right to effective redress to all persons, including
US citizens, who might be affected adversely by the law.
The comments made yesterday by Attorney General Ashcroft do
nothing to correct these severe deficiencies. He claimed that because the
terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks committed war crimes,
they "do not deserve the protection of the American Constitution."
But the US government has repeatedly argued that people accused of war crimes
deserve full due process protection. That is certainly the case for US soldiers
who might be accused of war crimes by foreign courts, and it has even been
true of alleged war criminals in Bosnia and Rwanda. The United States cannot
credibly insist on due process when others are the victims if it refuses to
accord the same due process when Americans are the victims.
Human Rights Watch believes the Executive Order is contrary
to fundamental principles of human rights. While the rights in question may
be derogated from in times of emergency, the US must show that this is being
done only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
The far-reaching and ambiguous reach of the Executive Order strongly indicates
that this is not the case. It is hard to imagine such a military commission
escaping criticism by the US government if created by another government.
It is wrong and unlawful for the US government to arrogate to itself the power
to transgress these well established protections of international human rights
law.
We urge you to rescind the Executive Order. Should any derogation
from the rights provided under the ICCPR prove necessary, it should be done
in a manner consistent with the strict requirements of international law.
Sincerely, Kenneth Roth Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
Study about assisting worthy Panamanian institutions
The following is an outline of a project I consider long overdue and worthy
of being undertaken. Please let me know what you think of it, by sending me
your email responses at REMAN0217@aol.com
Your involvement in this project will greatly enhance the
willingness of the Panamanian community in the USA to support all Panamanian
non profits.
Sincerely,
Raymond A. Grant
---
PANAMANIAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT
THE QUESTION: How can the Panamanian community in the USA, best support the
diverse support services provided by Panamanian non-profit organizations here
in the USA and in Panama.
SUCCESFUL MODELS: The USA Combined federal Campaign (CFC), and the United
way campaign.
SUCCESS FACTORS:
1. Fundraising drive once a year for all organizations.
2. Support by the Panamanian: non profit organizations and community
3. organization accountability and reporting.
4. Information dissemination.
PLANNING
1. What date is most appropriate to conduct the campaign and why.
2. How should the campaign be organized.
THE STUDY: Panamanian non-profit organizations both here
in the USA and in Panama, perform a very valuable service for the community
they support. The support for their community ranger from disaster relief
intervention, a variety of social services for families, educational incentives
for students, assistance with the high cost of medical services, sustain development
efforts and the promulgation of panamanian cultural activities. Potential
contributors will be best served by learning more about each organization.
METHOD: Each organization receiving this study is being
asked to provide the background information described below along with their
comments concerning the success factors and planning questions described above.
ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. The organization name, address, point of contact, phone number, fax number,
email address, web page URL, years of services
2. What is your mission
3. What community do you serve
4. Who are the people you serve
5. What are your organizations past projects and
accomplishments. (3 years).
6. What projects currently require funding and by
when.
7. How will a contributor know that his/her
contributions will be used only for projects.
8. What percentage of a contributor dollar ($1.00)
will be used for projects.
