No Torture for Profit Campaign

Subject: No Torture for Profit Campaign



From: Chicagoans for a Peaceful Colombia



Dear Friends,

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), a law passed in
1789 by the first US Congress, is the human rights tool that provides victims of the most egregious human rights violations perpetrated by corporations
with an avenue to stand up for their rights and seek
justice in US courts.

Under this law, cases aginst Coca-Cola, Drummond Coal, and Occidental Petroleum have been brought to US courts by the International Labor Rights Fund (www.laborrights.org...) and other group
representing Colombian trade unions and survivors of the Santo Domingo massacre.

EarthRights International (www.earthrights.org...)
recently launched the No Torture for Profit Campaign to defend the ATCA.
The law is now under attack by organizations representing some of the world's most powerful corporations. The National Foreign Trade Council
> (NFTC), the US Chamber of Commerce, and other major business lobby groups are seeking to repeal or "sharply limit" the law.

For more information please visit
www.notortureforprofit.org...
and sign the PLEDGE TO DEFEND THE ATCA. Below, two
recent articles about the ATCA from the NY Times.


Daniel de la Pava, Director
Chicagoans for a Peaceful Colombia
773 454 0820
www.chicagoans.net...
[email protected]



An Important Human Rights Tool

New York Times editorial, August 8, 2003

A federal appeals court based in California is
poised to rule on a
case that could have broad implications for human
rights worldwide.
A group of villagers from Myanmar, formerly Burma,
charge that when
a gas pipeline was built in their region, they were
subjected to
forced labor -- and that the American corporation
Unocal played a
role in their mistreatment (an accusation that
Unocal denies). A
three-judge panel has already ruled that the suit
can go forward.
But the Bush administration has asked an 11-judge
panel of the
same court to block it, arguing that it interferes
unduly with
foreign policy.

International human rights issues of this kind are
showing up with greater frequency in American courts, and they raise an array of legal questions, some of which could indeed affect America's relations with other nations. But that is not true in this and similar cases. It is important that the California appeals court, and other courts, stand by the basic principle that these suits can go forward.

The three-judge panel of the court, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruled last year that the Myanmar villagers could sue Unocal under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a two-centuries-old law that allows noncitizens to file
civil lawsuits under limited circumstances. The case must allege a violation of "specific, universal and obligatory" international norms:
egregious acts, like the forced labor the Myanmar
villagers say Unocal aided and abetted. And the defendant must be present in the United States -- physically, for human defendants, or by virtue of where they do business, in the case of corporations.

The Bush administration argues that permitting the
Myanmar villagers to sue will interfere with American
foreign policy, including the war on terrorism. But this is false.
The United States has no interest in protecting companies that engage in forced labor or other such abuses. The appeals court should adhere to decades of legal precedents and reject the Bush administration's argument.

As international human rights suits become more
common in American courts, there will inevitably be tougher calls. If a court determined that foreign policy concerns were real in some future case, it would have at its disposal a variety of legal doctrines allowing it to avoid deciding the case.
But in the suit before it, where such extraordinary circumstances are not present, the Ninth Circuit should make clear that the Myanmar villagers have a right to be heard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


The Court of Last Resort
>
> By Arlen Specter, The New York Times, August 7, 2003
>
> WASHINGTON -- The events of 9/11, as well as the war
> in Iraq,
> require our government to intensify its efforts to
> combat
> terrorism. So it is more important than ever that we
> do our
> utmost to show the world that we will enforce human
> rights
> laws evenhandedly.
>
> Fortunately, the United States already has the tools
> to lead
> by example. The Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in
> 1789 by the
> first Congress, allows aliens -- that is, people who
> are not
> citizens of the United States -- to sue in federal
> court for
> a "violation of the law of nations or a treaty of
> the United
> States." More than two centuries later, in 1992, the
> Torture
> Victim Protection Act became law. This law creates a
> right
> for victims -- even aliens -- of state-sponsored
> torture and
> summary execution in other countries to sue in
> federal court
> here.
>
> Despite this history, the Justice Department has
> decided to
> contest the application of these laws by federal
> courts to
> human rights violations. Protecting human rights
> through
> litigation, according to the administration, might
> disrupt
> relations with some of our allies. In a pending
> federal case
> involving slave labor in Burma, the Justice
> Department argued
> that this and similar lawsuits may complicate
> foreign policy
> by angering nations helping fight terrorism.
>
> In 1992, the Justice Department made a similar
> argument.
> Congress considered and rejected it, as did
> President George
> H. W. Bush. Both the president and Congress
> recognized that
> suits brought under these laws will not be
> successful against
> sitting governments and leaders who have immunity.
> They will
> bear fruit only when used against former leaders and
>
> corporations that have violated fundamental human
> rights laws
> recognized since the trials of Nuremberg.
>
> These two laws cover only the most extreme
> violations of
> international law. The Alien Tort Claims Act has
> been
> interpreted to apply only to genocide, war crimes,
> piracy,
> slavery, torture, unlawful detention and summary
> execution.
> The Torture Victims Protection Act is limited to
> torture and
> summary execution. There is no room for moral
> relativism.
>
> American credibility in the war on terrorism depends
> on a
> strong stand against all terrorist acts, whether
> committed
> by foe or friend. Our credibility in the war on
> terrorism is
> only advanced when our government enforces laws that
> protect
> innocent victims. We then send the right message to
> the
> world: the United States is serious about human
> rights.
>
> -- Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, is a
> member of
> the Senate Judiciary Committee.
>
>