Search

Begin New Search Topic Terrorism Publishing Institution Human Rights First

1. How to Build a More Sustainable and Mutually Beneficial Relationship with Saudi Arabia

Author:
Human Rights First
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
The United States is not taking Saudi Arabia’s outsized responsibility for human rights abuses within or beyond the kingdom’s borders seriously enough. President Barack Obama did not raise the issue in his meeting last year with the late King Abdullah. On his way to meet the new Saudi monarch, King Salman, in January 2015 the President remarked, “Sometimes we have to balance our need to speak to them about human rights issues with immediate concerns that we have in terms of countering terrorism or dealing with regional stability." He did not mention that Saudi Arabia’s policies (denying rights and freedoms at home while leading a vigorous, region-wide effort to push back against popular calls for better governance) have themselves contributed to regional instability and undermined counterterrorism efforts. Such policies harm U.S. interests and those of the people of Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.
Topic:
Human Rights, Regional Cooperation, Terrorism, and Repression
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and Saudi Arabia

2. How to Counter Terrorism by Supporting Civil Society in the United Arab Emirates

Author:
Brian Dooley
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
President Obama recently made a series of commendable declarations supporting civil society and affirming its importance to securing stability and fighting extremism. At the White House’s Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February 2015 he announced, “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied—particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines—when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit. When peaceful, democratic change is impossible, it feeds into the terrorist propaganda that violence is the only answer available.” The President added, “[W]e must recognize that lasting stability and real security require democracy. That means free elections where people can choose their own future, and independent judiciaries that uphold the rule of law, and police and security forces that respect human rights, and free speech and freedom for civil society groups.” That same month he said, “My argument to any partner that we have is that you are better off if you've got a strong civil society and you've got democratic legitimacy and you are respectful of human rights.” In April 2015, speaking specifically about the six U.S. allies that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—he noted, “The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading,” and warned of “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.” A lack of peaceful outlets for political grievances does indeed drive extremism and instability, but the Obama Administration continues to provide seemingly unconditional political and military support for GCC countries that have actually increased their repression against civil society in recent years. This contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy must be confronted and resolved, especially because it has a direct bearing on counterterrorism cooperation and U.S. national security interests. The president promised to have a “tough conversation” with the GCC leaders about their destructive policies. The \ White House and Camp David meetings with GCC leaders on May 13-14, 2015 provides the perfect opportunity to develop that conversation. Human Rights First produced blueprints in 2015 for how the United States can support civil society in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to encourage reform and respect for human rights—advances that would help bring stability to a volatile region and align with the administration’s stated policy goals. This report extends that series to an analysis of the repression of another U.S. security partner in the Gulf: the United Arab Emirates. It examines the UAE’s relations with the United States and what Washington can do to support a besieged Emirati civil society. Strong, functioning civil societies across the world—including in the UAE—are, as President Obama rightly identified, “a matter of national security” for the United States. This report is based on research conducted during a Human Rights First fact-finding trip to the UAE in April 2015, including dozens of discussions with human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, academics, lawyers, independent experts, officials from the United States and other governments, and others. Local human rights activists spoke to Human Rights First on condition of anonymity out of fear for their safety. Human Rights First thanks all those who provided information for this report.
Topic:
Civil Society, Human Rights, Terrorism, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
Middle East, Abu Dhabi, and UAE

3. The Role of Human Rights in Countering Violent Extremism

Author:
Human Rights First
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
On the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting, the United States is sponsoring briefings and meetings with allies to develop strategies to counter the spread of violent extremism. These activities will build on the February 2015 White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism (CVE). The CVE initiative is designed to advance a more preventive and proactive approach to countering violent extremism. It takes into account the lesson of the past decade that addressing the threat of violent extremism requires a truly comprehensive strategy that goes beyond military intelligence and law-enforcement tools. The United States government has played a leading role in moving forward a global conversation on countering violent extremism since convening the White House Summit. If this process is to yield results, the United States will have to continue to provide leadership in close coordination with the efforts of the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, notably the U.N. Secretary General’s Plan of Action on Preventing Violent Extremism to be presented to the U.N. General Assembly later this year. While sustained U.S. engagement with this multilateral process will be essential, just as important will be a clear demonstration from the United States that it is putting the principles of its CVE approach into practice. The United States must show its commitment to the principles it has been championing through its more comprehensive, preventive CVE strategy in each of its bilateral relationships, particularly those with states facing challenges from the threat of terrorism, which also engage in systematic violations of human rights. It is no accident that these two conditions often coincide. This blueprint brings together examples of existing bilateral relationships with some U.S. allies that fit this category. The material collected here illustrates the vital importance for the United States to encourage its allies to implement security policies rooted in the reality that good governance, the rule of law, and respect for human rights are essential tools in countering violent extremism. This blueprint compiles and summarizes previous Human Rights First blueprints. For more information on a specific topic or country, please refer to the following documents: How to Conduct Effective Counterterrorism that Reinforces Human Rights (December 2014); How to Bring Stability to Bahrain (December 2014); How to Prevent Egypt Slipping into a Deepening Crisis (December 2014); How to Build a More Sustainable and Mutually Beneficial Relationship with Saudi Arabia (March 2015); How to Counter Terrorism by Supporting Civil Society in the United Arab Emirates (May 2015); How the United States Can Help Counter Violent Extremism and Support Civil Society in Kenya (July 2015).
Topic:
Human Rights, Terrorism, United Nations, Violent Extremism, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

4. How to Ensure that the U.S. Drone Program does not Undermine Human Rights

Publication Date:
04-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
The Obama Administration has dramatically escalated targeted killing by drones as a central feature of its counterterrorism response. Over the past two years, the administration has begun to reveal more about the targeted killing program, including in a leaked Department of Justice White paper on targeted killing and in public remarks by several senior officials. While this information is welcome, it does not fully address our concerns.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Islam, Science and Technology, Terrorism, War, and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
United States, South Asia, and Middle East

5. How to Promote International Religious Freedom

Publication Date:
12-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
President Obama's 2009 Cairo speech and Secretary Clinton's 2012 speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace persuasively argued for policies that promote international religious freedom (IRF), including links to national security, economic development, and democracy promotion, and as an antidote to religious extremism and terrorism. Unfortunately, current IRF policy--in place since 1998 and largely built around the threat of economic sanctions which no administration has been willing to use--is not up to the challenges or the opportunities that President Obama and Secretary Clinton so eloquently identified. To correct that, the White House needs to embrace a leadership role, building an infrastructure and providing the necessary resources for a reinvigorated policy of new tools and strategies to thrive. The need is pressing.
Topic:
Security, Democratization, Economics, Religion, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

6. Habeas Works: Federal Courts' Proven Capacity to Handle Guantánamo Cases

Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
Habeas is working. The judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia have ably responded to the Supreme Court's call to review the detention of individuals at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. As former federal judges, many of us expressed our confidence as amici in Boumediene v. Bush that courts are competent to resolve these cases. We write now to affirm that our confidence has been vindicated. While we take no position on particular cases, a review of the District Court's treatment of the Guantánamo litigation convinces us that the court has effectively developed a consistent, coherent, and stable jurisprudence.
Topic:
Human Rights, Terrorism, War, and Law
Political Geography:
United States and Cuba

7. Fixing Bagram: Strengthening Detention Reforms to Align with U.S. Strategic Priorities

Author:
Sahr MuhammedAlly
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
Eight years after launching Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan—with a mission to kill and capture “high-value” al Qaeda and Taliban members and destroy the safe havens from which al Qaeda planned and directed the 9/11 attacks—the United States government has announced several significant detention reforms in Afghanistan. Human Rights First has closely monitored U.S. detention policies and practices since September 11, 2001. In this paper, we analyze the new detention reforms announced in September 2009 and make recommendations for further improvement in U.S. detention practices in line with U.S. policy interests and legal obligations. We base our recommendations on an analysis of the applicable humanitarian and human rights law and field visits to Afghanistan.
Topic:
Political Violence, Human Rights, Terrorism, War, and Prisons/Penal Systems
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and Taliban

8. Denial and Delay: The Impact of the Immigration Law's "Terrorism Bars" on Asylum Seekers and Refugees in the United States

Author:
Anwen Hughes
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
IMMIGRATION LAWS that target individuals who have engaged in or supported the commission of terrorist acts serve two very legitimate goals: to exclude from the United States people who threaten our national security, and to penalize people who have engaged in or supported acts of violence that are inherently wrongful and condemned under U.S. and international law. Both of these purposes are consistent with the United States' commitment to protect refugees who have fled political, religious and other forms of persecution. Indeed, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol explicitly exclude from protection persons who have committed a range of serious crimes, including acts of terrorism. The Refugee Convention also allows a country to expel a refugee who poses a danger to its security, or who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime in that country and constitutes a danger to the community.
Topic:
Human Rights, Terrorism, Immigration, and Law
Political Geography:
United States

9. In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts — 2009 Update and Recent Developments

Author:
Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
In May 2008, Human Rights First released In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts.1 Based on a comprehensive review of more than 120 actual prosecutions dating back to the 1980s, In Pursuit of Justice concluded that the criminal justice system is well-equipped to handle a broad variety of criminal cases arising from terrorism that is associated—organizationally, financially, or ideologically—with selfdescribed “jihadist” or Islamist extremist groups like al Qaeda. The roster of cases chronicled in In Pursuit of Justice ranges from blockbuster trials against hardened terrorists who planned or committed grievous acts around the world to complex terrorism-financing prosecutions and “alternative” prosecutions based on nonterrorism charges such as immigration fraud, financial fraud, and false statements. Many of these cases have been preemptive prosecutions focused on preventing and disrupting terrorist activities. In Pursuit of Justice acknowledged that terrorism prosecutions can present difficult challenges, and that the criminal justice system, by itself, is not “the answer” to the problem of international terrorism, but it found that the federal courts have demonstrated their ability, over and over again, to effectively and fairly convict and incapacitate terrorists in a broad variety of terrorism cases.
Topic:
Islam, Terrorism, War, and Law
Political Geography:
United States

10. In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts

Author:
Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin
Publication Date:
05-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
This White Paper examines the capability of the federal courts to handle criminal cases arising from international terrorism. In the Paper, we focus on terrorism that is associated— organizationally, financially, or ideologically—with selfdescribed “jihadist” or Islamist extremist terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Many observers have expressed views on this important subject. Some have argued for prosecuting terrorist criminals outside of the civilian court system; others have called for the establishment of an entirely new “national security court.” A premise of such arguments is that the traditional court system is not well-equipped to handle international terrorism cases. We aim to explore that premise.
Topic:
Islam, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
United States