The journalist Rafael Martínez Alequin in 2005. (Photo: Kitra Cahana/The New York Times)

In the ever-shifting media landscape of 2008, who, exactly, is a journalist?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit filed against the Police Department on Wednesday on behalf of three men — Rafael Martínez Alequin, Ralph E. Smith and David Wallis — who say that they were unfairly denied press passes because they work for online or nontraditional news outlets.
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, asserts that the three men were denied press credentials in 2007 “with little explanation or opportunity for appeal,” and that the system for issuing press credentials is “inconsistent and constitutionally flawed.”

The system of granting press credentials in New York City has run amok and needs to be changed immediately,” Norman Siegel, the civil-liberties lawyer, who is representing the three men in the complaint, said in a phone interview. “The right of a free press is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, and it’s a right that must be respected.”
Gabriel Taussig, chief of the administrative law division at the city’s Law Department, said in a statement:
The issuance of N.Y.P.D. press passes strikes an appropriate balance between First Amendment concerns and public safety. We just received the complaint and are investigating the plaintiff’s concerns thoroughly.

The Police Department issues two kinds of credentials: working press cards, for a “full-time employee of a news-gathering organization covering spot or breaking news on a regular basis such as robbery scenes, fires, homicides, train wrecks, bombings, plane crashes, where there are established police or fire lines at the scene,” and press identification cards, for journalists who are “employed by a legitimate news organization” but who do “not normally cover spot or breaking news events.” (The language is from the city’s official rules and regulations.)

The working press card ostensibly allows the journalist to cross police lines at emergencies and at nonemergency public events, like parades and demonstrations; the press identification card is “issued as a courtesy” but does not carry such privileges. Each card must be renewed annually.

The three men have varied journalistic practices.

Mr. Wallis is the founder of featurewell.com, a syndication service that provides news coverage to 1,500 publication worldwide, including The Guardian, The Irish Examiner, The Australian Financial Review and The New Zealand Herald. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Wallis had a press identification card off and on from 1994 until August 2007, when his petition to obtain the card again was denied without explanation.

Mr. Smith is published of The Guardian Chronicle, a Web site for black law enforcement workers. He has been a public information officer for the city’s Correction Department since 1988, and had a press credential from 1996 until January 2007, when he application to renew the credential was denied. Despite several attempts to get a written explanation for the denial, Mr. Smith has not received one, the suit says.

The case of Mr. Martínez Alequin, a longtime City Hall gadfly, has already been chronicled in the press. He published The Brooklyn Free Press from 1983 to 2001, when he ceased publication after the death of his wife. Then he launched an online publication, The New York City Free Press, in 2003, and began a related blog, Your Free Press, in 2007. He had a working press card from 1986 to 2000 and again from 2005 to 2006.

In May 2007, his application to renew it was denied, and from April to June of that year, the suit says, he was barred from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s news conferences in the Blue Room at City Hall because he lacked a press credential. Mr. Martínez Alequin has been a frequent critic of the mayor; he has since been allowed to attend news conference, but has not been called upon to ask questions.

The lawsuit asserts that the Police Department violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right of freedom of speech and of the press; the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law and equal protection; and the State Constitution’s guarantee of press freedom. The suit asks the court to find the regulations governing press badges to be “unconstitutionally vague”; to bar the Police Department from denying press credentials “in the same manner they have done to the plaintiffs therein”; and to award compensatory and punitive damages.

cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/nypd-is-sued-over-denial-of-press-credentials/

Nay Phone Latt’s colleague Thin July Kyaw was sentenced to two years imprisonment, Aye Than reported.

Another dissident, Saw Wai, was sentenced to two years in jail for publishing a poem mocking Than Shwe in the weekly Love Journal.

The first words of each line of the Burmese language poem spelled out the message “Senior General Than Shwe is foolish with power”.

Nay Phone Latt was arrested in January; the sentence delivered on Monday included 15 years for offenses under the Electronics Act, two years for “creating public alarm” and three and a half years for offenses under the Video Act, his mother said.

One of his offenses was apparently the possession of a banned video.

His blogs during the September 2007 uprising provided invaluable information about events within the locked-down country.

Aye Than said she was not allowed to attend the trial and Nay Phone Latt was not represented by his defence lawyer, Aung Thein, who began serving a four-month prison sentence for contempt of court last Friday.

“My son is a computer expert and he has not violated any criminal law. It is very unfair that he was given 15 years’ imprisonment under the Electronics Law for a crime he did not commit,” said Aye Than.

A spokesman for the opposition National League for Democracy party, Nyan Win, described Nay Phone Latt, a former party member, as “a young and intelligent blogger and computer expert.”

Spreading arrests

“The government is expediting the trials of political prisoners and many have been given lengthy prison sentences,” said Nyan Win.

Nyan Win said party youth member Tun Tun Naing, who was arrested last year, was given 19 years in prison on Friday.

Tun Tun Naing and Khin Maung Aye, of the privately-owned weekly News Watch, were arrested on 5 November and are being detained in Insein prison.

The media rights organizations Reporters Without Borders and Burma Media Association have demanded their immediate release, adding this brings to 10 the number of journalists arrested so far this year.

Irrawaddy magazine, an exile Burmese news organisation, said the current crackdown is also aimed at silencing legal attempts to ensure fair trials for dissidents now appearing before judges in closed court sessions.

Two weeks ago, three defense lawyers, Nyi Nyi Htwe, Aung Thein and Khin Maung Shein were imprisoned for between four and six months for contempt of court after complaining of unfair treatment.

Four other defense lawyers, Kyaw Hoe, Maung Maung Latt, Myint Thaung and Khin Htay Kyew have been barred from representing their clients, who include members of the 88 Generation Students group.

The US State Department has criticised the imprisonment of the four defense lawyers and urged the Burmese regime to drop all charges and release them.

President Bush announced that he will nominate one of his former senior Asia advisers as special representative for Burma.

‘No legitimacy’

The European Union said on Monday that multi party elections scheduled for 2010 in Burma will be seen as illegitimate unless the ruling military junta frees all political prisoners - particularly Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

The 27 EU foreign ministers deplored the lack of progress in Burma since the violent repression of peaceful protests.

Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has been under house arrest for more than 12 of the past 19 years.

The junta has announced general elections in 2010 as part of its “road map to democracy”.

The junta came to power in 1988 after crushing a nationwide pro-democracy uprising, killing as many as 3,000 people. It organized multi party elections in 1990 but refused to honor the results after Suu Kyi’s party won overwhelmingl

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7721271.stm

Strongly Protested by the Rwandan Government

Rwanda minister of information Louise Mushikiwabo, at a press conference, said the Rwandan government had through a diplomatic protest note served onto the Germany embassy in Kigali, objected to the arrest of Ms Kabuye, accusing the German government of bias, having failed to extradite two Hutu extremist elements, to face trial before the Rwanda genocide tribunal.

Judge Bruguière in November 2006 stirred controversy with his call for the prosecution of President Paul Kagame for actions alleged to have triggered the 1994 genocide.
Judge Bruguière said, Mr Kagame, whose Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front took control of the country after the 100-day genocide that saw the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, should stand trial at the United Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR.
Bruguière wants Kagame charged with bringing down the plane of former Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana with ground-to-air missiles on April 6, 1994. Three French crew member died with Habyarimana aboard his Falcon jet, together with the then president of neighboring Burundi, Cyprien Ntaryamire.

Judge Bruguière was unable to indict Mr Kagame because under French law sitting heads of state enjoy immunity from prosecution but the French judge also issued arrest warrants for nine of Kagama’s top aides, including Ms Kabuye.
The others are James Kabarebe, the head of the military, Charles Kayonga, army chief of staff; Faustin Jyamwasa-Kayumba, ambassador to India; Jackson Nkurunziza, of presidential guard; Samuel Kanjyamera, an RPF parliamentary deputy; Jacob Tumwime, an army officer; Franck Nziza, a Presidential Guard officer and Eric Hakizimana, an intelligence officer.

The five generals and five colonels served in Operation Turquoise, a French military mission to Rwanda in 1994 that has been marred by controversy over allegations that it helped Hutu genocide perpetrators.

The 10 including General Jean-Claude Lafourcade who commanded Operation Turquoise were named in a report released in August by Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugarama on France’s alleged role in the genocide.

“These serious and unfounded accusations could not be left without a response,” said Lafourcade in a statement.

“This is why 10 officers whose honour has been tarnished have decided to launch legal proceedings to counter these accusations in the courts of our country,” he said.

The officers have filed suit for slander in a Paris court, saying the report accused them of “having fully taken charge of the genocidal campaign” through Operation Turquoise, according to Lafourcade.

The report alleges that France was aware of preparations for the genocide, contributed to planning the massacres and actively took part in the killing.

It names 13 senior politicians and 20 military officials as responsible and raises the prospect of Rwandan legal action against them.

Following its release on August 5, France rejected the allegations as “unacceptable”.

Defense Minister Herve Morin said French soldiers had nothing to be ashamed of from their service in Rwanda.

At least 800,000 people died, mainly minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus, during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, according to the United Nations.

france24.com/en/20081105-french-officers-genocide-report-rwanda-france

The trial for the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, which took place in October 2006, has opened with the suspected killer still at large, the press excluded from the proceedings, and an apparent attempted poisoning of the prosecution’s lawyer. But even if the three existing defendants are found guilty, the actual masterminds of the murder have little to worry about.

We will probably never know who killed Anna Politkovskaya. The opening of pretrial proceedings at the Moscow District Military Court on Wednesday confirms, rather than confounds that statement. The three men who are facing prosecution, Sergei Khadjikurbanov and Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov, ethnic Chechens and brothers, are accused of shadowing Politkovskaya prior to the killing. But the man believed to have actually pulled the trigger (Rustam Makhmudov, Dzhabrail and Ibraghim’s older brother) is yet to have been detained; the identity of who actually ordered the killing is still unknown; the money supposed to have changed hands in payment for the killing has apparently not been traced; and none of the accused has confessed or agreed to assist the investigation.

If the prosecution has a weak case (and with no murderer in the dock or blood money in the evidence room it is not looking strong), it will not be helped by the fact that the professions of two of the suspects, Lt. Col. Pavel Ryaguzov, a serving FSB officer, and Sergei Khadjikurbanov , a former member of the anti-organized crime unit of the Moscow police department, mean the trial may be closed to the press and to the public. “As for the secret documents, they concern our requests to the FSB and MVD [the Interior Ministry] that are responsible, for example, for the observation service, whose officers’ names are classified,” Petros Garibyan, the senior investigator from the investigating committee of the Prosecutor General’s Office, told Novaya Gazeta in a recent interview. The next hearing will decide whether these “secret” materials mean that the press must be barred from the court room.

Meanwhile, the press has reported extensively on an apparent attempted poisoning of Politkovskayas’ family lawyer, Karinna Moskalenko, in France. The hearing went ahead without her, despite requests from the prosecution to delay proceedings until she was well enough to attend.

This week’s events have not been confidence building; in that, they are consistent with how the case has been conducted from the very beginning. It has been characterized by a bizarre mixture of surprise breakthroughs marred by premature announcements, extraordinary contradictions, and repeated leaks of sensitive information to the press.

Throughout the investigation, progress has been matched almost step for step by setbacks and frustrations. For almost a year after Politkovskaya’s murder, little was said officially. Then, on August 27, 2007, then Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika called a press conference in which he announced the arrest of ten people connected with the killing. He neither named the suspects nor explained their roles, but did say that they included serving and former members of the FSB and members of a Chechen-led criminal gang. On the same day, the FSB’s internal security department announced that a serving officer, Lt. Col. Pavel Ryaguzov, was suspected of being involved in the killing. Two days later, on August 29, a spokesman for Moscow City courts announced a warrant had been issued for the arrest of an eleventh suspect, identified as a former police officer in the Moscow Anti-Organized Crime Directorate (that was presumably Khadjikurbanov , though he was not named at the time).

After ten months of official silence, this apparent progress came as a welcome surprise – particularly the admission from both the prosecutor general and the FSB itself that security officers were involved. Politkovskaya was well known to have earned enemies amongst the security services, and the notion that FSB men might have been involved in her murder surprised no one. The idea that they might face justice did.

Then came the setbacks. Many of the names that Chaika had refused to mention in his press conference were almost immediately leaked to the press, compromising the investigation. By August 30, 2007, two of the eleven suspects had already been released because there was insufficient evidence to hold them longer. The remaining nine suspects were apparently charged, but by May 12, 2008, Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the investigating committee, said only seven remained in custody. Now, four have been charged, and three more have apparently been released, but it is not clear why.

Of the four who remain, only three - the two Makhmudov brothers, who are said to have followed Politkovskaya and passed information on to the killer, and Khadjikurbanov, who is said to have directed them – are to be tried for involvement in the killing. The case against these three is “pretty strong,” said Sergei Sokolov, the deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta who headed the paper’s own investigation of the killing. But the trial is “about three and half men,” Sokolov added. The involvement of the fourth man, Ryagazov, is more tenuous.

On August 30, 2007, a spokesman for the Moscow District Military Court told the Associated Press that the arrest of Ryagazov was “in no way” connected with the Politkovskaya murder – a direct contradiction of the FSB’s announcement three days earlier. A few weeks later, however, Shamil Burayev, the former head of the Achkoi-Martan administrative district in Chechnya, was arrested (in what was becoming a predictable pattern, his name was also leaked to Komsomolskaya Pravda before the authorities announced it. In April 2008, Rustam Makhmudov’s name was leaked to the same paper), and accused of hiring Ryaguzov to find Politkovskaya’s home address.

But Burayev was released, and although Ryaguzov is to be tried as part of the same case, he is charged not with the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, but with abuse of office and the attempted blackmail of a businessman called Eduard Ponikarov in 2003. “I could not make Ryaguzov’s case separate, as he did all that jointly with Khadjikurbanov, who is also accused of Politkovskaya’s murder,” Garibyan, the investigator, said in the Novaya Gazeta interview. Because Ryaguzov is a serving FSB officer, the entire case will be heard in a military court. “The courts will be military ones because one of the accused - Lt. Col. Ryaguzov – is an acting FSB officer. The rest did not object to military justice,” Garibyan told Novaya Gazeta.

That raises the suspicion that the FSB man is being attached to this case simply to ensure that the trial is heard in a military court. Like so much about this case, however, that is a matter of conjecture, and it is unclear who the military court benefits. The case will still be tried by a jury, and the issue of secrecy applies to documents submitted as evidence, not to the court itself. Sokolov, indeed, still believes Ryaguzov was involved in Politkovskaya’s murder, even if it is as yet unclear how, and thinks elements in the security services have been protecting him by obstructing the investigation.

Yet for all the leaks, premature statements and controversies, “in the grand scheme of things, this is progress,” said Nina Ogninova, Europe and Central Asia program coordinator at the Commitee to Protect Journalists, who has followed the case closely. “We have to commend Garibyan’s team, even if we have reservations about the Prosecutor General’s motives.”

“We don’t have any disagreement with the investigators concerning those three suspects,” Sokolov agreed, “though we have a slightly different opinion about Ryaguzov’s involvement.”

With no confessions or money changing hands, it seems that the prosecution’s case will be largely based on CCTV footage and telephone call records. We will only see how strong such a case can be once the trial opens – if it is not held in a closed court. But even with a guilty verdict, this trial will not close the case. Rustam Makhmudov, believed to be the killer, has still to be detained. The question of who ordered the killing, and who is laundering the money for the hit, will remain. Nor will it change the fact that somebody did their best to sabotage the investigation by leaking suspects’ names, and somebody put mercury in Karinna Moskalenko’s car on the eve of the trial. In this case, establishing the truth is proving as bewildering as sorting the good news from the bad.

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Politics&articleid=a1224254571

Sudan’s recent legal actions against a militia commander and others accused of war crimes in Darfur hold little promise of bringing justice to victims of serious abuses, claims Human Rights Watch which accused the Sudanese government of trying to undermine investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“The Sudanese government is putting up more window dressing as part of its ongoing effort to block the investigations of the International Criminal Court,” said Georgette Gagnon. “No one should be fooled by these moves.”

Since the ICC prosecutor requested an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on July 14, 2008 for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, Sudan has made the appearance of holding alleged perpetrators accountable for serious crimes in Darfur.

The ICC statute allows the court to proceed in a case only if relevant national courts are “unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.” ICC judges have interpreted this to mean that national courts must charge the same person with the same crimes as those brought before the ICC.

In August 2008, Sudan’s justice minister, Abdelbasit Sabdarat, appointed a special prosecutor and legal advisers in each of Darfur’s three states to investigate crimes that occurred from 2003 onward. In October, Sudanese justice officials announced that the new special prosecutor had completed an investigation into allegations against Ali Kosheib, a militia commander who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Sudanese authorities have not publicly specified which charges they are investigating, but a justice official said that the investigation relates to “killing and looting” by Kosheib and two others. Kosheib was previously in custody in Sudan but was released for lack of evidence.

“Even if the government were serious about prosecuting Kosheib, limitations in Sudanese law mean that he could not be tried for the full range of crimes, including crimes against humanity, that have been committed in Darfur,” said Gagnon.

Sudanese criminal laws do not include international crimes such as crimes against humanity and genocide. The country’s criminal procedure code does not recognize the principle of command responsibility, which is necessary for prosecuting military officers for their failure to take action against subordinates who commit unlawful acts. Broad legislative immunity provisions in Sudanese law block efforts to prosecute members of the armed forces, including militia members, national security forces and the police. Significant obstacles also prevent prosecutions in Sudan for rape and other sexual violence crimes that continue to be widespread in Darfur. Cumbersome reporting procedures, social stigma and the threat of facing adultery charges dissuade female victims of sexual violence from coming forward.

Sudan is apparently considering revisions to the criminal code to include international criminal law provisions, but these are not believed to include provisions that would address command responsibility, remove existing immunities, or address obstacles to prosecuting rape and sexual violence.

“The Sudanese government has repeatedly said its courts can prosecute those responsible for crimes in Darfur, but so far we have only seen ordinary criminal cases such as livestock theft,” said Gagnon. “We’ve yet to see anyone held responsible for conflict-related crimes.”

In 2005, after the ICC prosecutor announced the opening of his investigations, Sudan established Special Criminal Courts for Events in Darfur for the same purpose. But, as documented in the Human Rights Watch report, “Lack of Conviction”, authorities brought only 13 cases before these courts, all involving low-ranking individuals accused of minor offenses such as theft. In the sole case relating to a large-scale attack on civilians, the court convicted the accused of theft that occurred after the attack.

“Kushayb will be tried in Sudan’s domestic courts. He is under investigation. He will be held accountable” Sabdarat said.The judges of the ICC issued arrest warrants last year for Kushayb and Haroun on 51 counts of alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes. But Khartoum has so far refused to hand them over.

Sabdarat did not say on what charges will Kushayb be prosecuted despite earlier assertions that he has been cleared from any wrongdoings.Khartoum has been lobbying world countries to freeze a move by the ICC to indict president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir. In mid-July the ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced that he is seeking an arrest warrant for Al-Bashir.
The ICC’s prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo filed 10 charges: three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. In early October ICC judges have officially started reviewing the case in a process that could possibly drag on to next year.

The accusations against Ali Kushayb

HIGH RANKING JANJAWEED LEADER & SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINAL
WANTED FOR OVER 40 COUNTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES, FOR DIRECTING AND PARTICIPATING IN KILLINGS, RAPE, DESTRUCTION AND FORCIBLE DISPLACEMENT IN FOUR VILLAGES IN WEST DARFUR

Real name: Ali Mohamed Ali. AKA: Ali Kushayb, Ali Kosheib, Ali Kouchib, Ali Kosheb, Ali Koshib and Ali Koship

On 31st March 2005, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1593, referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC. Following a 20 month investigation the Court decided that there was sufficient evidence to indict Ali Kushayb.

During 2003-4 Kushayb was the most senior Janjaweed commander in the Wadi Saleh area in West Darfur - he was known as the ‘colonel of colonels’. Eventually, he came to command many thousands of Janjaweed militiamen and, with government support, led the joint government-militia “ethnic cleansing’ operations in Wadi Saleh.

Kosheib himself led a number of attacks against civilian villages, during the course of which civilians were killed, women raped, property looted and buildings razed to the ground.

In one attack, in the Kodoom area in August 2003, Kushayb was seen issuing instructions to the Militia/Janjaweed who carried out the attack, killing numerous civilians, some of them shot as they were fleeing.

During an attack on Bindisi on or about 15 August 2003, Kushayb was seen in military uniform issuing orders. His forces pillaged and burned homes and shops. The attack on Bindisi lasted for approximately five days and resulted in the destruction of most of the town and the death of more than 100 civilians, including 30 children.

In an attack on Arawala, in December 2003, the evidence shows that Kushayb personally inspected a group of naked women before they were raped by men in military uniform.

The evidence indicates that Kushayb also personally participated in at least one mass execution. In or around March 2004 he was involved in the execution of at least 32 men from Mukjar. Witnesses report that Kushayb beat these men as they were being boarded into Land Cruisers. The cars then left with Kushayb in one of them. About fifteen minutes later, gunshots were heard and the next day 32 dead bodies were found in the bushes.

Present whereabouts:

At the time the ICC warrant was issued Kushayb was in Sudanese Custody in relation to other incidents. However, according to recent reports, Kushayb was released from prison on 1 October 2007 and is currently at liberty in Sudan.

A Sao Paulo state court said former Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra tortured the three Brazilians when he headed the Sao Paulo secret police from 1970-74.

Local news media report that Thursday’s verdict is the first of its kind in Brazil. The media say the verdict represents only a recognition of guilt, however. Ustra is protected by a sweeping 1979 amnesty that exempts both leftist guerrillas and the military from prosecution for any political crimes committed during the regime.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/AP/story/721079.html