Europe: We're not the only ones to stifle dissent - Police tactics at the G20 demonstrations reflect an Europe–wide trend to conflate terrorism and protest as equal threats to security

We're not the only ones to stifle dissent: Police tactics at the G20
demonstrations reflect an Europe–wide trend to conflate terrorism and protest
as equal threats to security
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/may/08/civil-liberties-protest>
Tony Bunyan (Statewatch), Friday 8 May 2009

--snip--

The European Union produced two relevant security handbooks, one dealing with
international events and another designed to prevent terrorist attacks at the
Olympic Games in 2004. In December 2006 they were combined into one Security
handbook [pdf] "the security (both from a public order point of view as well
as counter-terrorism) of all major international events, be it political,
sporting, social, cultural or other". It also provides information on the
gathering of intelligence, how to stop and turn back "suspected" protestors at
EU borders and details how to expel protestors in an "efficient" manner if
they are detained.

These guides conflate terrorism and protests as equal threats to security and
this viewpoint is reflected in a changed police attitude to protests and
public order across the EU. The heavy handed policing of protests at the EU
summit in Gothenburg, Sweden in June 2001 was followed by repeated police
attacks on a demonstrators at a massive protest at the G8 meeting in Genoa in
July 2001. This lead to a series of trials[pdf] of both protestors and police
officers that have only just finished.

There were similar violent police responses to protests at the World Economic
Forum in Davros [pdf] and Evian, the EU summit in Thessaloniki in 2003, the
2005 G8 in Gleneagles and the 2007 G8 meeting in Heiligendamm[pdf], Germany.

An emerging pattern suggests that EU citizens wishing to exercise their
democratic right to protest – and to attend cross-border protests – are
confronted by para-military style policing, pre-emptive surveillance and
raids, denial of entry, preventive detention, the control and dispersal of
protests and expulsion from the country, sometimes with a lengthy re-entry ban.

These tactics imperill the right to dissent, an intrinsic democratic right,
and endanger the public safety of those attending protests.

For how long will free movement, one of the EU's founding principles, include
the right to cross national borders to protest?

Europe: Open government in the EU - The debate over MPs' expenses demonstrates why access to information is the lifeblood of any healthy democratic system

Open government in the EU: The debate over MPs' expenses demonstrates why
access to information is the
lifeblood of any healthy democratic system
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/may/20/freedomofinformation-eu>
Tony Bunyan (Statewatch), Wednesday 20 May 2009

As MPs' expenses are finally exposed after a five-year freedom of information
battle, how does the European Union measure up when it comes to transparency,
accountability and freedom of information?

--snip--

Access to documents is the lifeblood of a healthy democratic system. It allows
the public to find out about proposals, to debate and discuss them, and to
make their views known. We are still waiting for the enshrined right of access
promised in the Amsterdam treaty and the present discussions mean this right
is still a long way away.

The failure of transparency over MPs' expenses in the UK and MEPs in Brussels,
refusing access to details of the allowances they claim, only serves to
emphasise why we must claim a right to know what is being done in our name.

UK: We won't collude with efforts to use the academy to police Muslim students & immigration

We won't collude with efforts to use the academy to police immigration
<http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=406422&c=1>
7 May 2009

Ann Singleton, Steve Tombs and David Whyte decry the insidious way in which
academics are being used to monitor foreign students and staff

We are among the growing number of academics across the UK voicing our concern
about being drawn into playing a key role in an ever-tightening system of
immigration control. Many of us are now being asked to implement procedures
and checks related to immigration status on both our colleagues and our
students. The creeping imposition of such practices raises questions about the
legal responsibilities and contractual requirements of university and college
staff, the methods the UK is using to police immigration, and the compromising
of what remains of academic freedom in Britain.

In February 2008, the Government introduced major changes to UK immigration
policies and laws, seeking to consolidate a plethora of immigration-control
measures. The main plank of these changes was the introduction of a
points-based system (PBS) under which potential employers of migrant workers
from outside the European Union must be approved and licensed by the
Government before workers are granted permits to take up employment. Thus,
universities and colleges must now be licensed as "approved education
providers" to bring non-EU students into the UK to study. In addition, before
they are admitted to the country, these students must hold a visa giving them
permission to enter for the purposes of study at the approved institution, and
prove that they have enough money to pay their fees and maintain themselves in
the UK.

The Home Office has issued the same guidance to all higher education
institutions, but universities differ markedly in the interpretation and
implementation of their duties. Many have introduced a variety of new
practices to monitor both the employment and education of non-EU nationals.
Some academics and administrators are being instructed to take full registers
at lectures and seminars, and to report non-attendance (even if attendance is
not compulsory); others are being asked to take the passport information or
driving licence details of colleagues who are invited to act as external
examiners.

What is common to these responses is that they are discriminatory and likely
to result in at best prejudicial and at worst unlawful actions against
individual colleagues and students. Across the sector, management responses
are confused and overzealous. The atmosphere for non-EU students and
colleagues is becoming increasingly hostile and surrounded with doubt and
suspicion.

Our role does not extend to policing or monitoring immigration - nor should
it. It is important that academics resist collusion with the creeping
surveillance mentality being introduced into institutions on the back of the
PBS. The only reason for monitoring student activity or achievement should be
to inform best pedagogic, pastoral and ethical practices.

And such surveillance, while a breach of trust and a distortion of our
mentoring and pastoral roles, is just the thin end of the wedge. Some
universities have been visited by "anti-terrorism" police and asked to report
(Muslim) students whose work shows signs of "radicalisation". What next?
Reporting anyone who shows signs of radicalism? All of this flies in the face
of the better traditions of academic life, the educational process and the
ethics of ensuring that no one is discriminated against in the classroom or
the lecture hall. We urge, along with Susan Edwards ("Call off the
witch-hunts", 30 April), tolerance and free debate in university life.

For all these reasons, we refuse to collude with attempts by Government and
higher education institutions to use academics to police and monitor
immigration controls. But what, concretely, does this refusal mean? There are
some things that individuals can do. Take, for example, external examining,
that (largely unpaid) system of collegiate goodwill upon which all of our
undergraduate and postgraduate assessment rests; increasingly, those of us
undertaking such work are being asked to provide evidence of citizenship (and
by implication residency) - so a refusal to engage in any such process would
quickly pose problems for those making the demands.

But we cannot leave it to individuals to take isolated action. As we write, a
campaign is developing from the ground up through the University and College
Union, and should result in a debate on motions of non-cooperation at the
UCU's national congress at the end of May. We must also join with other unions
across the sector, notably those that represent administrative staff. Among
those things worth defending across universities and colleges, relationships
based upon mutual trust and tolerance are surely of the highest priority.

Ann Singleton is senior research fellow, School for Policy Studies, University
of Bristol; Steve Tombs is professor of sociology, Liverpool John Moores
University; and David Whyte is reader in sociology, University of Liverpool.
Postscript :

Full list of signatories:

Rachel Aldred, University of East London

Nicole Asquith, University of Bradford

Andrea Beckmann, University of Lincoln

Eileen Berrington, Manchester Metropolitan University

Ben Bowling, Kings College London

Jon Burnett, University of Liverpool

Hazel Cameron, University of Liverpool

Elizabeth Capewell, Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice

Sarah Cemlyn, University of Bristol

Paul Chatterton, University of Leeds

Bankole Cole, University of Hull

Charlie Cooper, University of Hull

Gary Craig, University of Hull

Heaven Crawley, Swansea University

Erika Cudworth, University of East London

Bill Dixon, Keele University

Iain Ferguson, University of Stirling

Robert Fine, University of Warwick

Steven French, University of Leeds

Diane Frost, University of Liverpool

Geetanjali Gangoli, University of Bristol

Barry Goldson, University of Liverpool

Dave Gordon, University of Bristol

Penny Green, Kings College London

Simon Hallsworth, London Metropolitan University

Mark Hayes, Southampton Solent University

Stuart Hodkinson, University of Leeds

Gerry Johnstone, University of Hull

Helen Jones, Manchester Metropolitan University

Paul Jones, University of Liverpool

Majella Kilkey, University of Hull

Dave King, University of Liverpool

Joan Langan, University of Bristol

Ana Lopes, University of East London

Diana Medlicott, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

Lucy Michael, University of Hull

David Miller, University of Strathclyde

Linda Moore, University of Ulster

Lydia Morris, University of Essex

Bill Munro, University of Stirling

Gabe Mythen, University of Liverpool

Gbenga Oduntan, University of Kent

Christina Pantazis, University of Bristol

Stephanie Petrie, University of Liverpool

Scott Poynting, Manchester Metropolitan University

Anandi Ramamurthy, University of Central Lancashire

Vincenzo Ruggiero, Middlesex University

Jill Rutter, Migration team, Institute for Public Policy Research

David Scott, University of Central Lancashire

Phil Scraton, Queens University Belfast

Prakash Shah, Queen Mary, University of London

Joe Sim, Liverpool John Moores University

Ann Singleton, University of Bristol

Graham Smith, University of Manchester

Iyiola Solanke, University of East Anglia

Keith Soothill, Lancaster University

Steve Tombs, Liverpool John Moores University

Dermot Walsh, University of Limerick

Reece Walters, The Open University

John Watson, University of Hull

David Whyte, University of Liverpool

Richard Wild, University of Greenwich

Mick Wilkinson, University of Hull

Stuart Wilks-Heeg, University of Liverpool

Derek Williams, Southampton Solent University

Emma Williamson, University of Bristol

Majid Yar, University of Hull

Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London

USA: NYT's Pentagon Propaganda - Misleading report=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_on_Guant=E1namo_and?= terrorism

NYT's Pentagon Propaganda: Misleading report on Guantánamo and terrorism
<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3788>
5/27/09

 While former Vice President Dick Cheney has been front and center in the
media debate over the current White House's national security policies, he's
not the only one trying to challenge the White House's message. The New York
Times published a front-page article (5/21/09) that bolstered the notion that
former Guantánamo prisoners "return" to terrorist activity.

The remarkably credulous Times story, under the headline "1 in 7 Freed
Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds," was based on a Pentagon report leaked
to the paper before its release yesterday evening. The article emphasized the
notion that former prisoners "returned to terrorism or militant
activity"--without adequately explaining the definition of either term, or
examining whether those former detainees were ever "terrorists" in the first
place.
And as Talking Points Memo has noted (5/26/09), the Times' front-page
headline claiming that "1 in 7" detainees had returned to the fight glossed
over the DOD's own distinction between "confirmed" and "suspected" cases.

And missing from Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller's account was a full
explanation of the Pentagon's long history of releasing similar studies, which
have been widely challenged and debunked. Attorney H. Candace Gorman, who
represents some Guantánamo detainees, has challenged the Pentagon's findings
(Huffington Post, 3/13/07), as has journalist and terrorism analyst Peter
Bergen (CNN, 1/24/09). As one prominent critic, Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall,
explained (Washington Independent, 1/23/09):

Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been
forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers. They have included people
who have never even set foot in Guantánamo--much less were they released from
there. They have counted people as "returning to the fight" for their having
written an op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in
a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. The DOD has revised and
retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their
numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning--except as an
effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed
dangers of these men.

The Times quoted Denbeaux deep in its May 21 piece, but those comments failed
to convey the serious problems with the Pentagon's previous reports on Guantánamo.

More fundamentally, can the Times be sure that the Pentagon knows that the
detainees were ever "terrorists" to begin with? As Denbeaux explained in one
report (12/10/07 [PDF]), "Implicit in the Government's claim that detainees
have 'returned to the battlefield' is the notion that those detainees had been
on a battlefield prior to their detention in Guantánamo." He concluded, based
on reviewing the Pentagon's own Combatant Status Review Tribunal records, that
just 4 percent of the available summaries "alleged that a detainee had ever
been on any battlefield." Only one detainee was actually captured by U.S.
forces on a battlefield. And, of course, fighting U.S. forces on a battlefield
is not in itself an act of "terrorism."

Even Bumiller seemed to distance herself from some of the language in her
piece. Appearing on MSNBC (5/21/09), she noted that "there is some debate
about whether you should say 'returned' because some of them were perhaps not
engaged in terrorism, as we know--some of them are being held there on vague
charges." The Times went on to make significant changes to the report on its
website (TPM Muckraker, 5/21/09). The new headline is "Later Terror Link Cited
for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees," and the piece reported that the former detainees
"are engaged in terrorism or militant activity"--as opposed to "returned to
terrorism or militant activity."

Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet (Politico, 5/21/09) responded by
arguing that the changes were not all that significant:

The story was about the estimate of the number of people who ended up, by
DOD's account, as being engaged in terrorism or militant activity after
leaving Gitmo. That still stands. The change was an acknowledgment that some
assert that not everyone in Gitmo is truly a terrorist. Some critics have said
that Gitmo is also filled with people who aren't truly terrorists.

This is disingenuous, at the very least. The story was about people
"returning" to the "fight," based on the latest in a series of misleading and
contradictory Pentagon reports on the topic--which should have led the Times
to treat the leak with more skepticism in the first place. The paper noted in
the article that the report's "conclusion could strengthen the arguments of
critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees
as part of President Obama's plan to shut down the prison by January." That is
precisely the effect it had (conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough gave the
paper a "tip of the hat"--5/21/09), thanks entirely to the way the Times
mishandled the story.

ACTION:

Ask New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt to examine the way the Times
handled its May 21 story about the Pentagon's claims regarding Guantánamo
detainees. Did the paper's original report do enough to challenge the
Pentagon's claims? And do the paper's subsequent changes to the story warrant
some explanation to readers?

CONTACT:

Clark Hoyt
Public Editor, New York Times
212-556-7652
public@nytimes.com

Thailand: Internet censorship to be followed by censorship of radio and TV

Internet censorship to be followed by censorship of radio and TV
<http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=31388>

Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by a government announcement on 14 May
that it will introduce new regulations for community radio stations and cable
and satellite TV stations aimed at controlling programme content. Broadcasters
would be required to seek permission for each programme being aired, the
government said.

"The adoption of these regulations would deal a fatal blow to free expression
in Thailand, which is already heavily restricted on the Internet," Reporters
Without Borders said. "The government will have the power to ban programmes
that question their policies and legitimacy. We urge the authorities to scrap
this plan."

Sathit Wongnongtoey, the minister in charge of the prime minister's office,
said the regulations would enable the authorities to take action against any
broadcaster airing content deemed to undermine democracy. They would be
enforced even-handedly with both "red-shirt" (anti-government) and "yellow
shirt" (pro-government) broadcasters, Sathit said.

"Once the regulations take effect, any broadcast station airing content deemed
to be politically incendiary will not be allowed to operate," he added.

The communication ministry has been censoring the Internet strictly since
January, ridding it of all content that is deemed to be "politically
incendiary" or to "attack the king." Suwicha Thakor, for example, was
sentenced to 10 years in prison on 3 April on a lese majeste charge for
posting content critical of the monarchy online.

Ghana: MFWA urges speedy passage of the Right to Information law

MFWA urges speedy passage of the Right to Information law
<http://www.ifex.org/ghana/2009/05/26/mfwa_urges_passage/>
26 May 2009

(MFWA/IFEX) - Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) is happy that after a
long delay in the passage of the Right to Information (RTI) Bill, there
appears to be hope on the horizon as the Bill is being considered by cabinet
for onward transmission to Parliament.

The Ghana News Agency (GNA) quoted Ebo Barton-Oduro, Deputy Minister of
Justice and Attorney General, as saying: "The time for the enactment of the
RTI Bill is now," and "the government is determined to pass the Bill into law
within the shortest possible time." The Deputy Minister stated that the
government acknowledges the people's right to access information as an
essential prerequisite for an effective and functional democracy as stipulated
in Article 21 (1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

MFWA, as a member of the RTI coalition, could not agree more with the
minister's assertion as the passage of the Bill would not only consolidate the
gains made in advancing democracy but also strategically place Ghana as a
beacon of democracy on the African continent.

RTI encourages accountability through transparency and is the most prominent
expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.
At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the
interest of government and citizens alike.

Acknowledging the recent review of the bill by the government statute law
review commissioner, MFWA wishes to state that there is the need to ensure
that the bill when passed into law will conform to international best
practise. These standards include: maximum disclosure, the obligation to
publish, limited scope of exceptions, user-friendly access procedures, limited
costs, open meetings, an overriding disclosure principle, the promotion of
open government and the protection of whistleblowers.

USA: Congress Attempts to Restore Teeth to Whistleblower Protections

Congress Attempts to Restore Teeth to Whistleblower Protections

<http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10015/>

On May 14, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on H.R. 1507, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill is Congress' most recent attempt to reform whistleblower protections after failing to pass substantively similar bills in the previous two sessions and abandoning a bipartisan whistleblower amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the committee, hailed the legislation as "a landmark step in restoring Congress' intent to protect employees from retaliation." The legislation closes several loopholes in the current protections for whistleblowers by expanding protections to include contractors and national security and intelligence employees, as well as improving the procedures for responding to charges of retaliation.

Rajesh De, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Policy within the Department of Justice offered testimony before the committee for the administration. De expressed support for many changes the legislation proposes. However, De raised concerns that the law "not inadvertently make it more difficult for civil servants in supervisory roles to discipline employees who themselves engage in such acts or whose job performance is otherwise inadequate." All indications are that this concern is unfounded. Other civil service legislation has neither clogged the courts nor restricted managers from firing employees for justifiable reasons.

A second concern from the administration pertains to national security. While agreeing that "whistleblowers in the national-security realm must have a safe and effective method of disclosing wrongdoing without fear of retaliation," the administration is concerned that the bill could result in the release of classified information. De suggested "an extra-agency avenue within the Executive Branch for federal employees who wish to make classified disclosures to Congress." Individuals would first seek approval for any disclosure to Congress from the Inspector General and head of their agency. If they decline to do so, employees could appeal to the extra-agency board "composed of senior presidentially-appointed officials from key agencies within and outside of the intelligence community." Such a mechanism would likely prevent agencies from wrongfully withholding information from Congress but could fail if the desire for secrecy derived from the White House and was supported by appointees.

Michael German of the ACLU refuted some of the administration's concerns in his testimony, stating, "By providing safe avenues for agency employees to report waste, fraud and abuse to the appropriate authorities and to Congress, there will be less of a need to anonymously leak information in order to have serious problems adequately addressed." German added that "FBI and other intelligence community employees have the training and experience required to responsibly handle classified information and the severe penalties for the unlawful disclosure of classified information will remain intact after this legislation passes." Congress must have sufficient capability to perform its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and respond in the case of misuse of funds or other misdeeds.

Angela Canterbury of Public Citizen also testified about the urgent need for the reforms contained in the legislation. Canterbury presented a letter that 286 organizations, including OMB Watch, signed, calling on President Obama and Congress to take "Swift Action to Restore Strong, Comprehensive Whistleblower Rights." The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009 satisfies all of the recommendations from the letter save one: it does not neutralize the government's use of the state secrets privilege.

Currently, H.R. 1507 is being studied by both the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on Homeland Security. The Senate has a similar bill of its own, S. 372, which is comparable in substance, though it lacks the same protections for employees at national security and intelligence agencies.

( 05/19/09)

USA: Tennessee schools sued for blocking gay websites

Tennessee Schools Sued for Blocking LGBT Websites

<http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/may2009/lgbtlawsuit052009.cfm>

A Knox County, Tennessee, high school librarian and one of her students, as well as two secondary-school students in the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, became the plaintiffs May 19 in a First Amendment lawsuit against the school districts for blocking access to information about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered issues on school computers while allowing access to anti-gay sites.

Franks v. Metropolitan Board of Public Education was filed in U.S. district court by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Tennessee on behalf of the four, all of whom are involved in their respective schools' Gay-Straight Alliance Club but who cannot access the clubs' parent website on campus workstations. However, students and faculty can access the sites of groups that condemn gay sexuality and promote therapy, including the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and the Traditional Values Coalition.

The blocking of LGBT sites was discovered in December 2008 by Andrew Emitt, a 17-year-old senior at Central High School in Knoxville. "I wasn't looking for anything sexual or inappropriate," Emmit explained in an April 15 statement issued by the ACLU. "I was looking for information about scholarships for LGBT students, and I couldn't get to it because of this software." The ACLU wrote (PDF file) school officials cautioning that the civil-rights organization would take legal action if sites remained inaccessible after April 29. Metro Nashville's Department of Law responded (PDF file) May 6, "Unblocking this particular category of websites is not a simple task [and] there are many issues to consider."

The lawsuit contends that the two school systems blocked access through the Education Networks of America's customizable Blue Coat filter to the blocking software's LGBT category, defined by ENA as including "sites that provide information regarding, support, promote, or cater to one's sexual orientation or gender identity [which] may include adult content, chat capabilities and personals." Metro Nashville and Knox County school districts are two of more than 100 Tennessee school districts sharing the networked filter through the Greenville City Schools Consortium, although the blacklist and whitelist settings are configurable "for as many exclusive locations as desired," according to the firm's website (PDF file).

The filter "only allows students access to one side of information about topics that are part of the public debate right now, like marriage for same-sex couples," asserted Karyn Storts-Brinks, librarian at Fulton High School in Knoxville and one of the four plaintiffs. The other three are Keila Franks and Emily Logan, who are enrolled in Metro Nashville's Hume-Fogg High School, and Bryanna Shelton, who attends Fulton High School.

Acknowledging that the districts must, as recipients of the e-rate telecommunications discount under the Children's Internet Protection Act, prohibit the display of online material that is considered harmful to minors, the complaint (PDF file) goes on to argue: "Because the defendants have already elected to block access to Adult/Mature, Pornography, Chat/Instant Message, and Personals, they do not need to block access to the LGBT category to block access to content in those areas," adding that the mandate applies only to "visual depictions" anyway.

—Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries Online Posted on May 20, 2009.

USA: OpenTheGovernment.org and Coalition Partners - Restore Measure of Transparency to the White House

OpenTheGovernment.org and Coalition Partners: Restore Measure of Transparency to the White House
<http://openthegovernment.org/article/articleview/388/1/117/?TopicID=>

Last week OpenTheGovernment.org and many coalition partners sent a letter asking the Obama Administration to treat the White House's Office of Administration (OA) as an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the interest of transparency and accountability. The letter, written by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) points out that from its inception in 1977 until August 2007, OA functioned consistently as an agency subject to the FOIA. In August 2007, in the midst of litigating a FOIA request brought by CREW for records related to OA's discovery that millions of e-mail messages were missing from White House servers, the Bush administration abruptly changed course and declared OA is not an agency and therefore need not comply with CREW's or any other information requests under the FOIA.

Brazil: Freedom Of Information Developments in Brazil

-----Original Message-----
From: freedominfo.org [mailto:FREEDOMINFO@HERMES.GWU.EDU] On Behalf Of
freedominfo.org
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:31 AM
To: FREEDOMINFO@HERMES.GWU.EDU
Subject: Developments in Brazil

freedominfo.org - Update, May 27, 2009

Developments in Brazil
-- President Lula da Silva Sends Draft FOI Bill to Congress
-- National Archive Launches Website with Historical Records from
Dictatorship

http://www.freedominfo.org

Recent developments in Brazil have fueled a growing debate on open
government, historical memory, and truth and justice initiatives in the
country. On May 13, 2009, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva sent a
long-awaited draft Access to Information Bill to Congress, acting on his
2006 campaign promise to enact a freedom of information law by the end of
his term. The law is now being reviewed by Brazil's two houses of Congress
and continues to be scrutinized by international and domestic FOI advocates
alike.

http://www.freedominfo.org

_________________________________________________________________________

freedominfo.org is a one-stop portal that describes best practices,
consolidates lessons learned, explains campaign strategies and tactics, and
links the efforts of freedom of information advocates around the world. It
contains crucial information on freedom of information laws and how they
were drafted and implemented, including how various provisions have worked
in practice.

_________________________________________________________________________

PRIVACY NOTICE freedominfo.org does not and will never share the names or
e-mail addresses of its subscribers with any other organization. We would
welcome your input, and any information you care to share with us about your
special interests. But we do not sell or rent any information about
subscribers to any other party.

_________________________________________________________________________

Sudan: ARTICLE 19 Submits Written Statement to 11th Session of UN Human Rights Council

 

---

From: ARTICLE 19 [mailto:press@article19.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:58 AM
To: lists@markperkins.info
Subject: Sudan: ARTICLE 19 Submits Written Statement to 11th Session of UN Human Rights Council

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – 27 May 2009

Sudan: ARTICLE 19 Submits Written Statement to 11th Session of UN Human Rights Council

ARTICLE 19, supported by the Khartoum Center for Human Rights and Environmental Development (KCHRED), has submitted a written statement expressing serious concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Sudan to the 11th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, taking place from 2 to 19 June 2009.

In their written statement, ARTICLE 19 and KCHRED draw the UN Human Rights Council’s particular attention to the increasing violation of the rights of freedom of expression and access to information, as well as liberty and freedom of association, in Sudan.

The organisations express particular concern about three issues. First, despite some positive changes, the draft Press Act retains many of the problematic provisions of the 2004 Press Act. Second, existing legislation, in particular the 1999 National Security Forces Act, has been used to suppress the exercise of a broad range of human rights in the country, including the right to freedom of expression, in relation to issues of international justice and domestic legal reform. Third, over the past year, there has been a broader campaign to restrict the right to freedom of expression in Sudan with increasing incidents of harassment, intimidation and arrests of journalists.

In response to these human rights challenges, ARTICLE 19 and KCHRED recommend that the UN Human Rights Council renews the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan. In addition, the organisations urge the Government of National Unity to: protect the rights to freedom of expression and access to information in the run-up to the national elections in 2010; revise the draft press law and the 1999 National Security Act in accordance with international human rights standards; and immediately halt media censorship and violations of human rights, especially when they are connected with debates on domestic legal reform, developments on the human rights situation in Darfur and the proceedings of the International Criminal Court.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• See ARTICLE 19’s written statement here: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/sudan-article-19-statement-on-sudan-to-the-human-rights-council.pdf
• For more information: please contact Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer at sejal@article19.org or at +44 20 7278 9292.

ARTICLE 19

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech. For more information on ARTICLE 19 please visit www.article19.org

6-8 Amwell Street London EC1R 1UQ United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7278 9292 - Fax: +44 20 7278 7660 - info@article19.org - www.article19.org

 

powered by phplist v 2.10.5, © tincan ltd

World Bank: Article 19 Submissions to World Bank Information Policy Review

 

---

From: ARTICLE 19 [mailto:press@article19.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:22 AM
To: lists@markperkins.info
Subject: World Bank: Submissions to World Bank Information Policy Review

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – 27 May 2009

World Bank: Submissions to World Bank Information Policy Review

The Global Transparency Initiative, of which ARTICLE 19 is a founding member, provided two submissions on 22 May 2009 to the World Bank’s formal review of its information disclosure policy. One is the GTI’s Model World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information, our statement of what an ideal Bank disclosure policy should look like. The other is our Comments on the World Bank’s Approach Paper, Toward Greater Transparency: Rethinking the World Bank’s Disclosure Policy.

ARTICLE 19 and the GTI welcome efforts by the World Bank to review their Policy on Disclosure of Information, which currently fails to conform to best practice at other International Financial Institutions (IFIs), as well as international standards on openness, as encapsulated in the GTI’s Transparency Charter for International Financial Institutions: Claiming our Right to Know.

The GTI was founded in 2004 with a mandate to promote openness at the IFIs, which we believe is essential to holding these institutions to account, to improving development effectiveness and limiting potential negative impact, and to building local ownership and control.

We particularly welcome the Bank’s call for a “paradigm shift” in access to Bank-held information, and its commitment to move to a true presumption of openness, whereby all Bank information is accessible, subject only to a list of narrow and clearly defined exceptions.

Our analysis of the Approach Paper, however, as detailed in our Comments, indicates that the Bank’s concrete proposals fail to implement this stated commitment in practice. Some of the GTI’s key criticisms of the proposals are:

• The lack of a clear vision on the links between openness, poverty reduction and the Bank’s overarching “empowerment” mandate.
• An overly broad regime of exceptions which grants third parties a veto over disclosure and which are not harm-based.
• The absence of a proper test for disclosure in the overall public interest.
• The failure to provide for an independent appeals body.
• The lack of clear progress on timely access to information for participation in decision-making, in particular for project affected peoples.

ARTICLE 19 and the GTI recognise that it is easier to criticise that to create. The Model World Bank Policy is our positive statement of the approach which we believe an IFI disclosure policy should take. It provides a strong statement of the right to information, alongside practical provisions to give effect to this right, including:

• A commitment to the automatic disclosure of a wide range of information, including to facilitate participation in decision-making.
• Clear and progressive rules on the processing of requests.
• A narrow regime of exceptions (constraints) based on a clear risk of harm to protected interests and a public interest override.
• A broad right to appeal refusals to disclose information to the Inspection Panel, an oversight body which is independent of Bank management.
• A strong and yet practical set of promotional measures to ensure fulsome implementation of the policy.

We urge the Bank to take both our criticisms and our vision, as set out in the Model Policy, into account when preparing its draft information disclosure policy. We also call on the Bank to release a draft policy in a timely fashion to allow for public comment and input before a revised policy is sent to the Board for approval.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• The Model Policy is available at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/world-bank-model-world-bank-policy-on-disclosure-of-information.pdf and the Comments are available at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/world-bank-article-19-and-gti-joint-analysis-on-world-bank-s-information-dis.pdf.
• For more information, please contact Toby Mendel, Senior Legal Counsel, a19law@hfx.eastlink.ca, +1 902 431-3688.

ARTICLE 19

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech. For more information on ARTICLE 19 please visit www.article19.org

6-8 Amwell Street London EC1R 1UQ United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7278 9292 - Fax: +44 20 7278 7660 - info@article19.org - www.article19.org

powered by phplist v 2.10.5, © tincan ltd

Sierra Leone: Analysis of Draft Information Law

 

---

From: ARTICLE 19 [mailto:press@article19.org]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:27 AM
To: lists@markperkins.info
Subject: Sierra Leone: Analysis of Draft Information Law

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – 28 May 2009

Sierra Leone: Analysis of Draft Information Law

ARTICLE 19 has prepared a Note on the draft Sierra Leonean Right to Access Information Bill 2008, prepared through a collaborative effort of local NGOs and the authorities. The draft Bill is, for the most part, a progressive piece of legislation which draws on better international and comparative practice. At the same time, the regime of exceptions in the draft is overbroad and fails to provide for disclosure in the overall public interest.

ARTICLE 19 very much welcomes moves in Sierra Leone to adopt a law recognising the right to access information held by public authorities. This is a key piece of democratic legislation, as reflected in the more than 80 right to information laws which have been adopted by countries around the world.

The draft Bill is generally in line with international standards and better international practice. At the same time, there are still areas where it could be further improved. Some of ARTICLE 19’s key recommendations are:

• The law should include a minimum list of proactive publication obligations.
• More detailed fee rules should be set out in the primary legislation.
• The right to information law should override secrecy laws in case of conflict.
• The minister should not have the power to issue certificates rendering information secret on national security grounds.
• The scope of some exceptions should be narrowed, while other exceptions, including in favour of privacy, should be added.
• A rule mandating disclosure in the overall public interest should be added.

ARTICLE 19 encourages civil society and the authorities to continue to work towards the adoption of a strong right to information law for Sierra Leone. We would be happy to provide any assistance we can in this effort.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• The Submission is available in English at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/sierra-leone-article-19-analysis-of-information-bill.pdf
• For more information, please contact Toby Mendel, Senior Legal Counsel, a19law@hfx.eastlink.ca, +1 902 431-3688.

ARTICLE 19

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech. For more information on ARTICLE 19 please visit www.article19.org

6-8 Amwell Street London EC1R 1UQ United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7278 9292 - Fax: +44 20 7278 7660 - info@article19.org - www.article19.org

powered by phplist v 2.10.5, © tincan ltd

Europe: Analysis of European Parliament report on the Regulation on public access to EU documents by Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

European Parliament report on the Regulation on public access to EU
documents by Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex:
<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/mar/eu-access-reg-cashman-11-march-adop
ted-sw-analysis.pdf>

The analysis refers to the amendments in: Resolution on Commission proposals
as adopted on 11 March 2009:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/mar/eu-access-reg-cashman-11-march-adopt
ed.pdf

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Guatemala: Historical Archives Lead to Arrest of Police Officers for war crimes

Historical Archives Lead to Arrest of Police Officers in Guatemalan
Disappearance
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/index.htm>
Declassified documents show U.S. Embassy knew that Guatemalan security
forces were behind wave of abductions of students and labor leaders

National Security Archive calls for release of military files and
investigation into intellectual authors of the 1984
abduction of Fernando García and other disappearances

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 273

By Kate Doyle and Jesse Franzblau

Washington, DC, March 17, 2009 – Following a stunning breakthrough in a
25-year-old case of political terror in Guatemala, the National Security
Archive today is posting declassified U.S. documents about the disappearance
of Edgar Fernando García, a student leader and trade union activist captured
by Guatemalan security forces in 1984.The documents show that García's
capture was an organized political abduction orchestrated at the highest
levels of the Guatemalan government.

Guatemalan authorities made the first arrest ever in the long-dormant
kidnapping case when they detained Héctor Roderico Ramírez Ríos, a senior
police officer in Quezaltenango, on March 5th and retired policeman Abraham
Lancerio Gómez on March 6th as a result of an investigation into García's
abduction by Guatemala's Human Rights Prosecutor (Procurador de Derechos
Humanos—PDH). Arrest warrants have been issued for two more suspects, Hugo
Rolando Gómez Osorio and Alfonso Guillermo de León Marroquín. The two are
former officers with the notorious Special Operations Brigade (BROE) of the
National Police, a unit linked to death squad activities during the 1980s by
human rights groups.

According to the prosecutor Sergio Morales, the suspects were identified
using evidence found in the vast archives of the former National Police. The
massive, moldering cache of documents was discovered accidentally by the PDH
in 2005, and has since been cleaned, organized and reviewed by dozens of
investigators. The National Security Archive provided expert advice in the
rescue of the archive and posted photographs and analysis on its Web site
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/guatemala/police/index.htm> . Last week,
Morales turned over hundreds of additional records to the Public Ministry
containing evidence of state security force involvement in the disappearance
of other student leaders between 1978 and 1980. As the Historical Archive of
the National Police prepares to issue its first major report on March 24,
more evidence of human rights crimes can be expected to be made public.

Government Campaign of Terror

The abduction of Fernando García was part of a government campaign of terror
designed to destroy Guatemala's urban and rural social movements during the
1980s. On February 18, 1984, the young student leader was captured on the
outskirts of a market near his home in Guatemala City. He was never seen
again. Although witnesses pointed to police involvement, the government
under then-Chief of State Gen. Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores always denied
any role in his kidnapping. According to the Historical Clarification
Commission's report released in 1999
<http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/mds/spanish/anexo1/vol1/no48.html> ,
García was one of an estimated 40,000 civilians disappeared by state agents
during Guatemala's 36-year civil conflict.

In the wake of García's capture, his wife, Nineth Montenegro – now a member
of Congress – launched the Mutual Support Group (Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo—GAM),
a new human rights organization that pressed the government for information
about missing relatives. Co-founded with other families of the disappeared ,
GAM took shape in June of 1984, holding demonstrations, meeting with
government officials and leading a domestic and international advocacy
campaign over the years to find the truth behind the thousands of
Guatemala's disappeared. The organization was quickly joined by hundreds
more family members of victims of government-sponsored violence, including
Mayan Indians affected by a brutal army counterinsurgency campaign that
decimated indigenous communities in the country's rural highlands during the
early 1980s.

Declassified U.S. records obtained by the National Security Archive under
the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the United States was
well-aware of the government campaign to kidnap, torture and kill Guatemalan
labor leaders at the time of García's abduction. "Government security
services have employed assassination to eliminate persons suspected of
involvement with the guerrillas or who are otherwise left-wing in
orientation," wrote the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and
Research <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc02.pdf> four
days after García disappeared, pointing in particular to the Army's
"notorious presidential intelligence service (archivos)" and the National
Police, "who have traditionally considered labor activists to be
communists."

The U.S. Embassy in Guatemala considered the wave of state-sponsored
kidnappings part of an effort to gather information on "Marxist-Leninist"
trade unions. "The government is obviously rounding up people connected with
the extreme left-wing labor movement for interrogation," wrote U.S.
Ambassador Frederic Chapin
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc01.pdf> in a cable naming
six labor leaders recently captured by security forces, including García.
Despite reports that García was already dead, the ambassador was
"optimistic" that he and other detainees would be released after
questioning.

Many of the kidnapping victims noted in U.S. records included in this
briefing book also appear in the "Death Squad Dossier,"
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/guatemala/logbook/index.htm> an army
intelligence logbook listing 183 people disappeared by security forces in
the mid-1980s. In 1999, the National Security Archive obtained the original
logbook and released a public copy. The logbook indicates that García was
among dozens of students, professors, doctors, journalists, labor leaders
and others subjected to intensive army and police surveillance in the weeks
leading up to their capture, disappearance and – in about half of the cases
– execution. The logbook entry listing Fernando García
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/dossier7-8.pdf> includes his
alleged subversive alias names and affiliation to the Guatemalan Communist
Party, as well as detailed personal information taken from official
documents such as his national identification card and his passport. Other
victims listed in the Death Squad Dossier who are named in the U.S.
documents posted today include Amancio Samuel Villatoro, Alfonso Alvarado
Palencia, José Luis Villagrán Díaz and Santiago López Aguilar. U.S. records
describe their disappearances in the context of the government campaign to
systematically dismantle Guatemala's labor movement.

The U.S. records posted today contain illuminating information on how the
use of illegal kidnapping as a counterinsurgency strategy reached a peak
during the government of Oscar Mejía Víctores. U.S. figures estimated that
there was an average of 137 abductions a month under the Mejía Víctores
regime during 1984. According to one extensive State Department report
written in 1986 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc11.pdf> ,
part of the modus operandi of government kidnapping involved interrogating
victims at military bases, police stations, or government safe houses, where
information about alleged connections with insurgents was "extracted through
torture." The security forces used the information to conduct joint
military/police raids on houses throughout the city, secretly capturing
hundreds of individuals who were never seen again, or whose discarded bodies
were later discovered showing signs of torture. The National Police,
subservient to the Army hierarchy, created special units to assist the
military in the urban counter-guerrilla operations.

The records also demonstrate military efforts to cover up their role in the
extra-legal activities. In 1985, for example, as Guatemala prepared to
transition to a civilian government for the first time in a quarter of a
century, the Army ordered the Archivos – which the State Department called
"a secret group in the President's office that collected information on
insurgents and operated against them" – to move its files out of
presidential control and into the Intelligence Directorate (D-2) section of
the military.

U.S. documents also chronicled developments as members of GAM became targets
of government violence themselves. GAM members suffered the worst period of
violence during Easter "holy week" in 1985, beginning with the kidnapping of
senior member Héctor Gómez Calito, whose tortured and mutilated body was
found on March 30, 1985. According to one U.S. Embassy source
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc06.pdf> , agents from the
Detectives Corps of the National Police had been gathering information on
Gómez in the days leading to his abduction. Two weeks before his
disappearance, Chief of State Oscar Mejía Víctores publicly charged that GAM
members were being manipulated by guerrillas
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc07.pdf> and questioned
the sources of their funding. Following his murder, GAM co-founder and widow
of missing student leader Carlos Ernesto Cuevas Molina, Rosario Godoy de
Cuevas, who had delivered the eulogy at Gómez Calito's funeral, was found
dead at the bottom of a ditch two miles outside Guatemala City, along with
her 2-year-old son and 21-year-old brother. While the government claimed
their deaths was an accident, Embassy sources discounted the official
version of the events
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc08.pdf> , and claimed that
Godoy was targeted and her death a premeditated homicide. Human rights
monitors who had seen the bodies reported that the infant's fingernails had
been torn out.

Future Investigations

The arrest of the police officers in Guatemala is an unprecedented step in
the struggle against impunity, and a testament to the investigative efforts
being carried out in the historical National Police archive. The
declassified records, however, demonstrate that Fernando García's
disappearance was not an ordinary police arrest, but rather an organized
political abduction orchestrated by the highest-levels of government. In
addition to the police files that have already proven so crucial to breaking
new ground in this case, the release of the relevant military files is
critical to unraveling what role the Army High Command and Chief of State
played in this crime. In addition to the material authors of the crime,
those who planned and ordered García's kidnapping must also be investigated.
At the time of his disappearance, the key military and police personnel
overseeing Guatemala's urban counter-terror campaign were:

Head of the Army Intelligence Directorate (D-2): Byron Disrael Lima
Estrada
Director of the Presidential General Staff (EMP): Juan José
Marroquín Siliezar
Directors of the Archivos: Marco Antonio González Taracena and Pablo
Nuila Hub
Chief of the National Police: Héctor Rafael Bol de la Cruz

Oscar Mejía Víctores
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/guatemala/genocide/index.htm> , Guatemala's
former chief of state, is currently named as one of eight defendants charged
with genocide and other crimes in an international criminal case
<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/guatemala/genocide/index.htm> that is being
investigated by Judge Santiago Pedraz in the Audiencia Nacional (National
Court) of Spain.

The García case is also important in the context of Guatemala's current
struggle against organized crime. The same week authorities arrested the
police officers involved in Fernando García's kidnapping 25 years ago, the
PDH announced that retired and active duty police are involved in today's
organized kidnapping gangs. Government prosecutors have announced they are
currently investigating at least 10 members of the police's elite
anti-kidnapping unit for involvement in contemporary abductions. The
struggle for justice and accountability for Guatemala's past crimes has a
direct relationship to the current efforts to dismantle illegal armed
networks. Last week's arrests marked an important initial step in the right
direction towards ending blanket impunity in Guatemala.

________________________________

U.S. documents on government death squad operations, the disappearance of
Edgar Fernando García, and attacks on Guatemala's Mutual Support Group - GAM

Document 1 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc01.pdf>
February 23, 1984
Trade-Union Leaders Abducted
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, Classified Cable

The U.S. Embassy in Guatemala informs Washington about the abduction of
Fernando García and other trade-union officials in the recent weeks.
According to press accounts on his disappearance, armed men kidnapped him
while he was walking in Guatemala City on February 18, 1984. The cable
provides information on related incidents of abductions of labor activists
in the weeks leading up to Fernando García's capture, describing the
disappearances in the context of the widespread government targeting of
Guatemala's labor leaders. The document provides information on the
political and organizational affiliation of the recently disappeared labor
activists. According to the cable, Fernando García was part of CAVISA, the
industrial glass union, which is an "affiliate of the communist trade-union
confederation FASGUA," Guatemala's autonomous federal trade-union.

It also mentions that the disappeared victims were associated with the CNT
(Confederacion Nacional de Trabajadores), and makes reference to the case of
the 28 CNT labor leaders, who "disappeared in 1980 in one fell swoop. It is
believed that GOG security forces murdered all of them." The other group
mentioned is the National Council for Trade Union Unity – CNUS, which
asserted that Fernando García was already dead. Despite those claims, the
U.S. Embassy remained "optimistic that Fernando García of CAVISA will be
released." Edgar Fernando García was never seen or heard from again.

Document 2 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc02.pdf>
February 23, 1984
Guatemala: Political Violence Up
U.S. Department of State, secret intelligence analysis

The same day that Embassy officials inform Washington of Fernando García's
disappearance, the State Department produces an intelligence report on the
recent spike in political assassinations and disappearances. The
intelligence report describes several notable cases of victims in the "new
wave of violence," over the past several weeks, and provides key information
on police coordination with military intelligence in government kidnappings.
It mentions the recent abduction and release of a labor leader and confirms
that "he had been kidnapped by the National Police, who have traditionally
considered labor activists to be communists." It states that the detective
corps (the DIT) of the National Police has traditionally been involved in
"extra-legal" activities, working alongside the Army's presidential
intelligence unit, the Archivos.

(Document previously posted:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15/index.html)

Document 3 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc03.pdf>
March 19, 1984
Guatemala: Democratic Trade Union Confederation CUSG Protests Abductions of
Trade-Union Leaders
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, confidential cable

Less than a month after Fernando García's disappearance, the U.S. Deputy
Chief of Mission in Guatemala, Paul D. Taylor reports on the growing
protests from the Confederation of Syndicalist Unity (CUSG) over the recent
disappearance of trade-union leaders, "especially the disappearance of
STICAVISA trade-union official Edgar Fernando García." The CUSG blames the
disappearances on the "government attempts to destabilize the Guatemalan
labor movement," a charge which the government denies. The cable goes on to
describe the individual cases of the disappeared, including the case of the
escaped prisoner Álvaro René Sosa Ramos, who "fled to asylum in the Belgian
Ambassador's residence after being shot in an attempt to escape his captors.
Once recovered from gunshot wounds, he will be going into exile." Sosa Ramos
is mentioned in the Death Squad Dossier as entry number 87.

The document offers further background as to why the labor leaders are
disappearing. According to the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Paul D. Taylor,
"By picking up leftist trade-union leaders connected with the CNT and the
FASGUA, the government of Guatemala – advertently or inadvertently – is
destabilizing the Marxist-Leninist wing of the Guatemalan labor movement."
His analysis concludes that the individuals were most likely targeted due to
government suspicion that they were connected to armed insurgent groups, and
that "security forces are after them for that reason."

Document 4 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc04.pdf>
April 3, 1984
Guatemala: March 25-29 Visit of U.S. Trade-Union Delegation
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, classified cable

International pressure continues to mount for investigations into the
disappearances of Fernando García and other labor leaders. The cable reports
on a trade-union delegation visit to Guatemala, led by former U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for Human Rights Pat Derian. The delegation presses
Embassy officials for information on the missing trade-union leaders. The
Embassy continues to make the point that "all of these abducted union
leaders are from the leftist CNT," emphasizing the political orientation of
the disappeared victims.

The delegation maintains that Fernando García was being held by the army,
and asked the Embassy to look into his disappearance, as well as that of
Jose Luis Villagrán, "disappeared February 11, 1984 in zone 11." U.S.
officials promise they will "make inquiries to the government about all
these people." Ms. Derian presses further, asking them to make
"representations," not just "inquiries" into the disappearances. Deputy
Chief of Mission Paul D. Taylor still maintains, however, that it has yet to
be demonstrated "whether government forces seized all these trade-unionists"
and further comments "If the GOG has picked them up, it is almost certainly
for matters other than their trade-union activities."

Document 5 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc05.pdf>
April 1, 1985
Murder of Member of Mutual Support Group (GAM)
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, limited officials use cable

The cable reports on the death of Héctor Orlando Gómez Galito, a member of
the activist Mutual Support Group (GAM). The Embassy reports that he was
"abducted and assassinated the weekend of March 30-31." Gómez was kidnapped
by unidentified men after leaving a weekly GAM meeting in Zone 11 of
Guatemala City, and his body was discovered near the Pacific highway 15
miles from the city. "His assassination follows in the wake of reports that
members of the groups had been the subject of unspecified threats."

The cable lists the co-directors of GAM as Beatriz Velasquez de Estrada,
Aura Farfán, Maria Rosario Godoy de Cuevas, Maria Choxom de Castañón, Nineth
Montenegro de García, and another Mrs. García, the mother of Edgar Fernando.
The cable examines Héctor Gómez Calito's involvement in the organization,
concluding that he may have acted as a spokesperson unofficially because of
security concerns. Gómez was one of the group's planner for a march to be
held on April 12 or 13, and, "According to reports, the GAM claims that
Gómez was killed because of his involvement with the organization."

Document 6 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc06.pdf>
April 3, 1985
Background on Case of Héctor Orlando Gómez Calito, Murdered "Mutual Support
Group" (GAM) Member: Embassy Discussions with Two Sources
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, confidential cable

GAM director, Nineth Montonegro de García, and Father Alain Richard, member
of Peace Brigades International (PBI), meet with U.S. officials to provide
the Embassy with background information on the death of Héctor Gómez. They
explain that Gómez had joined GAM following the disappearance of his
brother, and had acted as a publicist for the group. Richard tells officials
that the police detective corps (DIT) had asked the mayor of the town of
Amatitlan, where Gómez was from, for information about his activities, and
that his house was reportedly under surveillance by "men in automobiles."

The Embassy also states "Richard had no doubts that the GOG [the Government
of Guatemala] was directly responsible for Gomez's murder." Richard added
that regardless of the belief that the entire group was being watched, GAM
would continue their advocacy efforts. The cable ends by noting "Embassy
officers will meet GAM directors on Monday, April 8."

Document 7 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc07.pdf>
April 4, 1985
Background and Recent Developments of the Mutual Support Group (GAM)
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, Confidential Cable

The Embassy provides a summary of GAM organizing in March, "with some
emphasis on its activist activities (blocking traffic, occupation of
government offices, etc.) and the GOG reaction to those activities." It
gives background on the creation of the group, dating its first public
appearance in early July 1984, when GAM members began publicly campaigning
for an investigation into the disappearances of their relatives and calling
upon others to join. They approached the Embassy shortly thereafter, "asking
for our assistance on behalf of 67 missing persons."

A few days after a GAM event in November 1984, they were received by Chief
of State General Mejía, where "they repeated their demands" to investigate
the disappeared. They met with Mejía a second time, which led to the
formation of a government commission ostensibly to look into the GAM
charges. In March 1985, they occupied the offices of the Guatemalan Attorney
General, "protesting the lack of action by the GOG Tripartite Commission."
Beginning in mid March, the government began to express disapproval of the
tactics chosen by GAM to pursue their objectives. Press reports carried
warnings issued by Mejía Víctores in which he "charged that the GAM was
being manipulated by the insurgents and questioned the source of the group's
funds."

According to the cable, the Embassy had informed Washington on March 25 that
four members of GAM had allegedly received various threats. One of the names
on their list was Héctor Gómez, even though he was "not then known to the
Embassy in any capacity related to GAM. Additional information regarding the
specifics of Gómez's murder have been provided."

Document 8 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc08.pdf>
April 6, 1985
Death of Maria Rosario Godoy de Cuevas, a Director of the "Mutual Support
Group" (GAM)
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, Confidential Cable

Before Embassy officials had the chance to meet with GAM members again,
another one of their members was killed. "At about 8:00 pm April 4, Maria
del Rosario Godoy Aldana de Cuevas, a founder and member of the board of
directors of GAM was found dead in her automobile." Three days after Rosario
Godoy de Cuevas delivered the eulogy at Héctor Gómez' funeral, she was found
dead along with her 2-year-old son and 21-year-old brother. U.S. Embassy
provides the official story given by the Guatemalan government, that she was
"the victim of an apparent vehicular accident." Embassy sources, however,
believe the death was premeditated, and note several contradictory facts in
the official version of events. Rosario de Cuevas helped found GAM following
the disappearance of her husband, Carlos Ernesto Cuevas Molina, another
labor leader who was kidnapped on May 15, 1984.

Document 9 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc09.pdf>
April 9, 1985
Mutual Support Group (GAM) Update
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, Confidential Cable

Provides further information on the death of Maria Godoy de Cuevas, and
describes the "sense of threats felt by GAM members." In press broadcasts
Archbishop Prospero Penados referred to the recent events, including the
Cuevas deaths, as the "holy week of shame and fear" in Guatemala, and called
the deaths a "bloody act."

Embassy comments on the matter of the autopsy, noting that it is unclear
what examination was completed by "police forensic specialists." An Embassy
source also said "he had heard that the victims had died of asphyxiation and
that a 'bogus autopsy' had been performed ... another rumor circulating said
that the victims had died from gunfire. But again, no details or proof have
been offered." The Guatemalan Interior Minister said he had the "official
report that showed the Cuevas case to have been an accident."

The cable reiterates that "GAM members had recently began to receive
anonymous threats by letter and telephone," and that other press reports
spoke of anonymous threats against the organization. Threats
notwithstanding, the group announced plans for another public protest later
that month.

Document 10 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc10.pdf>
April 9, 1985
Conversation with the Chief of State on Human Rights
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, Confidential Cable

Five days after the death of Rosario Godoy de Cuevas, U.S.
Ambassador-at-large for Central America Harry Shlaudeman visits Guatemala
and meets with Mejía Víctores and Foreign Minister Fernando Andrade. During
the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala Alberto M. Piedra takes Mejía
Víctores aside to express U.S. concern over the recent events, "especially
the death of Maria Rosario Godoy de Cuevas." He indicates that "even if the
government had nothing to do with the matter, public opinion abroad would
definitely blame the military." The Ambassador explains that the high
profile violence was making it difficult to defend Guatemala's position,
especially in Congress, and this could endanger their efforts to increase
aid to the government.

Piedra also takes aside the Foreign Minister, who tells the Ambassador that
he was against the "continuance of these types of crime." He added that the
U.S. Embassy should continue opposing such violations to all sectors of
Guatemalan society, "and in a very special way to the military."

Document 11 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB273/Doc11.pdf>
March 28, 1986
Guatemala's Disappeared: 1977-86
Department of State, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, secret report

This Department of State report from 1986 provides details on the evolution
of the use of forced disappearance by security forces over the decade prior,
and how this tactic became institutionalized under the Mejía Víctores
regime. "In the cities, out of frustration from the judiciary's
unwillingness to convict and sentence insurgents, and convinced that the
kidnapping of suspected insurgents and their relatives would lead to a quick
destruction of the guerilla urban networks, the security forces began to
systematically kidnap anyone suspected of insurgent connections." The
documents estimates there were 183 reported cases of government kidnapping
the first month of the Mejía government, and an average of 137 abductions a
month through the end of 1984. Part of the modus operandi of government
kidnapping involved interrogating victims at military bases, police
stations, or government safe houses, where information about alleged
connections with insurgents was "extracted through torture."

The document concludes that the U.S. embassy and the State Department have
failed in the past to adequately grasp the magnitude of Guatemala's problem
of government kidnapping.

(Document previously posted:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15/index.html)

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

USA: Court Rebuffs FBI Censorship of Manuscript

Court Rebuffs FBI Censorship of Manuscript
<http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/05/court_rebuffs_fbi_censorship.html>

A federal court last week rejected most of the objections raised by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to publication of a 500-page manuscript
critical of the FBI counterterrorism program that was written by retired FBI
Special Agent Robert G. Wright. The manuscript had been submitted for
pre-publication review in October 2001.

"This is a sad and discouraging tale," wrote Judge Gladys Kessler in a May 6
order (pdf), referring to the FBI's handling of the manuscript.

"In its efforts to suppress this information, the FBI repeatedly changed its
position, presented formalistic objections to release of various portions of
the documents in question, admitted finally that much of the material it
sought to suppress was in fact in the public domain and had been all along,
and now concedes that several of the reasons it originally offered for
censorship no longer have any validity," Judge Kessler observed.

The 41-page, partially redacted court ruling reviewed the facts of the
pre-publication review dispute as well as the legal standards for official
censorship of such materials, and dismissed all but one government objection
to the manuscript. The court also dismissed other government objections to
release of written answers to interview questions submitted by then-New York
Times reporter Judith Miller.

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Europe: Access Info files legal challenge againt Council of the European Union regarding transparency

Access Info files legal challenge againt Council of the European Union
regarding transparency
<http://www.access-info.org/?id=35>
24 March 2009

The Council of the European Union refuses to release legal advice on reform
of transparency rules in contravention of European Court of Justice
jurisprudence

Going against rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Turco
case, the Council of the European Union has refused to release legal advice
about its proposed reforms to the EU access to documents rules.

Access Info yesterday (23 March 2009) filed a legal appeal against this
refusal arguing that recent decisions of the ECJ make clear that legal
advice relating to the legislative process should be made public. On 1 July
2008 the European Court of Justice ruled in the Turco case that there is an
"overriding public interest" in "disclosure of documents containing the
advice of an institution's legal service on legal questions arising when
legislative initiatives are being debated".

In a particularly ironic twist, the legal advice being sought by Access Info
is about how the Turco decision would impact upon the current access to
documents practice of the Council of the European Union and how it might
affect the reform of the EU's transparency rules.

"European citizens have the right to know how European Court of Justice
decisions are interpreted and, potentially, being deprived of meaning by
other European institutions," commented Eva Moraga, Lawyer for Access Info
who filed the requests for documents. "This right is particularly strong
when the ECJ decisions impact upon legislative initiatives, and even more so
legislative initiatives about transparency."

"European citizens have the right to know how European Court of Justice
decisions are interpreted and, potentially, being deprived of meaning by
other European institutions," commented Eva Moraga, Lawyer for Access Info
who filed the requests for documents. "This right is particularly strong
when the ECJ decisions impact upon legislative initiatives, and even more so
legislative initiatives about transparency."

Access Info calls on all governments in Europe to make public the national
laws, regulations and rules relating to what passengers may not carry onto
aircraft. As Franz Kafka said in his short story Before the Law, "the law
should always be accessible to everyone".

To read the full press release click here
http://www.access-info.org/data/Access%20Info%20News%20-%20%20EU%20challenge
d%20to%20disclose%20legal%20advice%2024%2003%2009.pdf
To read the appeal ("confirmatory application") click here
http://www.access-info.org/data/Confirmatory%20Application%20Doc%205671%20De
f.pdf
To see the document with the partially disclosed legal advice most of which
is deleted click here
http://www.access-info.org/data/Legal%20Advice%20Partial%20st06865.en09.PA.p
df

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

USA: Declass Board Tells Obama Openness is "At Risk"

Declass Board Tells Obama Openness is "At Risk"
<http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/at_risk.html>

In a new letter <http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/03/pidb030609.html> to
President Obama, the Public Interest Declassification Board warned that
reliable public access to government information, the very foundation of
representative democracy, may be in jeopardy.

Although "our Board was heartened by your early statements and actions on
openness in Government," wrote Board acting chairman Martin Faga
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/03/pidb030609.html> to the President on
March 6, "we have to sound a note of alarm about how well the Government is
doing in this area."

"In fact, we have concluded that this fundamental principle of
self-government" - that is, citizen access to information about Government -
"is at risk and, without decisive action, the situation is likely to
worsen."

The Public Interest Declassification Board
<http://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb/index.html> was established
by Congress in 2000 to advise the president on declassification policy and
practice. Board members are appointed by the White House and Congress.

Mr. Faga, a former director of the National Reconnaissance Office,
identified <http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/03/pidb030609.html> several
structural and procedural factors that he said impede declassification,
including inadequate resources, coordination and leadership, as well as poor
management of digital records. "Future historians may find that the paper
records of early American history provide a more reliable historical account
than the inchoate mass of digital communications of the current era."

Although the Board's mission focuses on declassification of historical
records, the Board has also taken an interest in classification policy and
has called for a revision to the executive order on classification.

"Serious attention to the classification process itself is needed to ensure
that it supports declassification and to address the particularly
challenging and long-standing issue of over-classification," the Board's
letter <http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/03/pidb030609.html> said.

A presidential directive initiating a revision of the executive order on
classification policy is believed to be imminent.

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/