SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 19 2016, 10:45am EDT
Contact:
Reprieve's London office can be contacted on: communications [at] reprieve.org.uk / +44 (0) 207 553 8140.,Reprieve US,, based in New York City, can be contacted on Katherine [dot] oshea [at] reprieve.org
UK Government Adopts US Principles on Secret Drone War
The British Government has adopted some of the key principles of the US covert drone programme, a response to MPs published today shows.
Responding to questions from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on the use of drones for 'targeted killing', the Government claims that it should be able to use force in response to threatened attacks "even if there is no specific evidence of where...an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack."
WASHINGTON
The British Government has adopted some of the key principles of the US covert drone programme, a response to MPs published today shows.
Responding to questions from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on the use of drones for 'targeted killing', the Government claims that it should be able to use force in response to threatened attacks "even if there is no specific evidence of where...an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack."
This diverges sharply from customary international law on the issue and matches almost exactly the controversial definition of an "imminent" threat used by the US to justify a covert programme which has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths for which no one has been held accountable. The US Government has re-defined imminent such that it "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack ...will take place in the immediate future."
The UK Government also refused to answer a number of questions from the Committee on the legal basis for their use of targeted killings outside warzones - described by David Cameron as a "new departure" to the House of Commons last year - claiming many of the questions about the applicable legal framework were "hypothetical". Nevertheless, when asked about the legal frameworks that would apply to the use of drones outside of armed conflict, the JCHR noted that the government's response came close to asserting that "the applicable law follows the choice of means" rather than the law dictating the means used to address the threat.
Ministers did admit for the first time that there is a policy on this issue, but have declined to publish it, saying that while "the Government does not have a 'policy on targeted killing' it does have "a policy to defend the UK and its citizens against threats to their security..." which includes the use of drones outside warzones.
Commenting, Jennifer Gibson, staff attorney at Reprieve said:
"It now appears as if the UK has followed the US down that slippery-slope of US-style assassination programmes, re-defining key legal terms in a way that potentially turns the whole world into a battlefield and sets dangerous precedents for how other states might act in future.
Ministers cannot claim the situation is 'hypothetical' when we already know that it has for years been complicit in the US's own drone programme, a programme the evidence shows has killed hundreds of civilians, without any form of accountability, yet has failed to make the world a safer place.
"When it comes to drone strikes outside warzones, the Government can't have its cake and it eat it too. It cannot claim the right to target and kill individuals worldwide, but then refuse to provide even basic answers as to the legal basis for such action. It must provide more. It must answer the very reasonable questions MPs put to then on what their policy - and the legal basis for it - is.
Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.
LATEST NEWS
The Pine Tree State Sues Polluters for Climate Deception
"With Maine’s lawsuit, the demands that Big Oil faces accountability for decades of climate lies are growing louder and more powerful," said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity.
Nov 26, 2024
Maine on Tuesday joined a group of eight other U.S. states that have sued major oil and gas companies for deceiving the public about their products' role in the climate crisis.
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey's office announced that he has filed a suit in state court against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, Sunoco, and the American Petroleum Institute.
Frey's suit accuses the companies of knowing about the potentially catastrophic consequences of continued dependence on fossil fuels for decades, thanks to companies' internal research, but that the defendants undertook a disinformation campaign to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change, delay a transition to a green energy economy, and sow doubt in the public's mind about the impact of burning fossil fuels.
"The state seeks to hold the defendants accountable for failing to warn Mainers and concealing their knowledge about the devastating consequences of the increasing use of fossil fuels on Maine's people, economy, and environment. This conduct has resulted in enormous financial burdens, public health impacts, property damage, and other harms across Maine as a result of extreme weather, sea-level rise, and warmer temperatures," according to the release from Frey's office.
Frey's lawsuit asks the court to require the companies pay for both "past and future climate harms caused by the defendants" and ensure that the companies end their "ongoing deception" in the state. The state is demanding a jury trial and numerous forms of relief, including penalties and disgorgement of profits, according to the release.
Frey is the 11th attorney general (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), to take such a legal move. More than 20 states, tribes, cities and counties have so far pursued similar climate deception lawsuits to date, according the Maine attorney general's office. Earlier this fall, California's attorney general filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil, alleging that the company falsely touted chemical recycling as a solution to the plastics crisis.
A September report from Big Oil International found that the number cases climate cases brought against fossil fuel corporations—many of which center on climate damages, misleading advertising about fossil fuels, or failure to reduce emissions in line with legal agreements—has been ticking upward since the 2015 Paris climate accords.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, whose organization helps communities hold fossil fuel companies accountable, applauded the move: “Big Oil companies have lied for decades about the catastrophic harm they knew their products would cause, and now Maine has joined a growing wave of communities across the U.S. that are demanding accountability. These polluters continue to fuel the climate crisis and lie about it to protect their profits. It’s only right that Big Oil companies pay their fair share of the damage their deception has caused. With Maine's lawsuit, the demands that Big Oil faces accountability for decades of climate lies are growing louder and more powerful.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Landmine Victims Demand 'Mine-Free World' at Global Summit
"Every landmine planted is a child, a civilian, a woman, who is just waiting for their legs to be blown off, for his life to be taken," said one survivor who lost a leg to a landmine in 2005.
Nov 26, 2024
"Look what anti-personnel landmines will do to your people," read a sign displayed by two of the protesters who gathered in Siem Reap, Cambodia this week to confront delegates at a conference on the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty.
The people holding the sign were among those who took part in the demonstration while using wheelchairs or crutches due to the amputations and serious injuries they have suffered from landmine attacks.
More than 100 people lined a walkway leading to the conference venue on Sunday as the Siem Reap-Angkor Summit on a Mine-Free World opened.
The conference began days after the Biden administration announced a reversal of its own policy and approved a plan to provide anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine—a decision that was condemned by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and other human rights groups.
As Amnesty International USA advocacy direct Ben Linden said last week, the weapons are "inherently indiscriminate" because they cause explosives to scatter across a wide region, putting people at risk long after conflicts end. The majority of landmine victims are children.
In 2023, at least 5,757 people were killed or maimed by landmines, 84% of whom were civilians. Over one-third were children.
Alex Munyambabazi, who lost a leg to a landmine in 2005 in Uganda, was among those who assembled at the landmines summit.
"We don't want to see any more victims like me, we don't want to see any more suffering," he toldAgence France-Presse (AFP). "Every landmine planted is a child, a civilian, a woman, who is just waiting for their legs to be blown off, for his life to be taken. I am here to say we don't want any more victims. No excuses, no exceptions."
The U.S. and Russia are not signatories to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, but Ukraine is. According to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Ukraine "asked" for anti-personnel landmines.
Tamar Gabelnick, director of ICBL, told AFP that Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied landmines would signify a "blatant disregard for their obligations under the mine ban treaty."
Ukrainian delegates were present at the Siem Reap conference this week.
In a message delivered to delegates in Siem Reap, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged the "important progress" made by the treaty, "with over 55 million anti-personnel devices destroyed across 13,000 square kilometers in over 60 countries, and thousands of people receiving lifesaving awareness education and victim assistance services."
"I call on states parties to meet their obligations and ensure compliance to the convention, while addressing humanitarian and developmental impacts through financial and technical support," he said. " I also encourage all states that have not yet acceded to the convention to join the 164 that have done so."
"A world without anti-personnel mines is not just possible," Guterres said. "It is within reach."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Death Tied to Texas Abortion Ban as 'Stigma and Fear' Disrupt Miscarriage Care
"The only reason she is not with us is because of Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, and every single Republican politician who helped put Texas' abortion ban in place," said one advocacy group.
Nov 26, 2024
Friends and family of Porsha Ngumezi, a 35-year-old mother of two in Houston, were stunned last year to learn that she had died in a hospital after suffering a miscarriage when she was 11 weeks pregnant—and medical experts who spoke to the investigative outlet ProPublicaon Monday had the same reaction.
"All she needed was a [dilation and curettage]," one friend told Ngumezi's grieving husband, Hope Ngumezi, referring to a standard procedure which is often given to pregnant patients who have first-trimester miscarriages. Commonly called a D&C, it is also diagnose or treat other health conditions and provide abortion care.
Dr. Daniel Grossman, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at University of California, San Francisco, toldProPublica that "at every point" of Ngumezi's visit to Houston Methodist Sugar Land, a hospital outside Houston, medical providers' response to her case was "kind of shocking."
"She is having significant blood loss and the physician didn't move toward aspiration," Grossman told ProPublica.
Like at least two other Texas women—Nevaeh Crain and Josseli Barnica—Ngumezi's death in June 2023 was the result of the abortion ban that went into effect in Texas in 2022, according to medical experts who reviewed her case.
Ngumezi arrived at the hospital on June 11, 2023 after experiencing heavy bleeding 11 weeks into her pregnancy with her third child. Doctors noted that Ngumezi had a blood-clotting disorder and that she was experiencing "significant bleeding" with large clots.
"Doctors assume that a D&C is not standard in Texas anymore, even in cases where it should be recommended. People are afraid: They see D&C as abortion and abortion as illegal."
An ultrasound showed a "sac-like structure," but no fetus or cardiac activity were detected, indicating that she was having a miscarriage.
But instead of providing a D&C, in which a small tube is inserted into the uterus to gently remove any remaining fetal tissue, doctors took a "wait-and-see approach [that] has become more common under abortion bans," according to the medical experts who spoke to ProPublica.
Dr. Gabrielle Taper, who has worked as an OB-GYN in Austin, told ProPublica that since Texas' abortion ban went into effect in 2022—two months after the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—there has been "much more hesitation [among doctors] about: When can we intervene, do we have enough evidence to say this is a miscarriage, how long are we going to wait, what will we use to feel definitive?"
For Ngumezi, that hesitation meant that Dr. Andrew Ryan Davis, the obstetrician on duty, prescribed misoprostol to help Ngumezi pass the fetal tissue without a D&C.
Dr. Alison Goulding, another OB-GYN in Houston, told ProPublica that because misoprostol can also be used for women in labor or to treat postpartum bleeding, under Texas' abortion ban, "stigma and fear are there for D&Cs in a way that they are not for misoprostol."
"Doctors assume that a D&C is not standard in Texas anymore, even in cases where it should be recommended," Goulding said. "People are afraid: They see D&C as abortion and abortion as illegal."
But more than a dozen doctors told ProPublica that considering Ngumezi's blood-clotting disorder, doctors should have provided a D&C.
"Misoprostol," reported ProPublica, "is an effective method to complete low-risk miscarriages but is not recommended when a patient is unstable."
Some critics who support abortion bans have dismissed Ngumezi's case—and that of other women who have died because of the laws—as the result of medical malpractice that had nothing to do with recently passed state laws. They claim Texas' law protects women who have miscarriages.
But ProPublica noted that Ngumezi had a similar case to one described on social media by podcast host Ryan Hamilton earlier this year. Hamilton's wife experienced bleeding while miscarrying at 13 weeks, and was prescribed misoprostol and sent home after an ultrasound at Surepoint Emergency Center Stephenville showed no fetal cardiac activity. The bleeding got worse, but an emergency doctor told the couple they couldn't provide a D&C because of "the current stance" in Texas.
Greer Donley, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh, said that "the antiabortion movement wants us to blame the doctors and sometimes that is warranted. But abortion bans are the ultimate cause of this harm."
"When life in prison is the penalty for violating a ban, doctors will understandably be risk averse. And that chill in care will cause death," said Donley.
ProPublica reported that "performing a D&C attracts more attention from colleagues, creating a higher barrier in a state where abortion is illegal."
Doctors, added Goulding, "have to convince everyone that it is legal and won't put them at risk [of prosecution]."
In Ngumezi's case, the bleeding continued after she took misoprostol, and her heart stopped three hours later—a "preventable" death, according to the experts.
"The only reason" Ngumezi died, said Reproductive Justice for All, is that Republican politicians including President-elect Donald Trump helped put Texas' abortion ban in place.
"We are heartbroken and enraged by the tragic, preventable death of Porsha Ngumezi," said Planned Parenthood Texas Votes. "This nightmare reality, where political agendas outweigh patients' lives, has left another family shattered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular