What to do in Somalia?

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

The lack of a coordinated international response might have emboldened pirates off the coast of Africa to step up their terror, according to Retired Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff. This comes on the heels of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announcing the Obama Administration’s new approach to the situation in Somalia, which includes the U.S. seizure of financial assets.

Cosgriff believes that a coordinating authority among the nations with maritime interests in the region could help present a unified front against pirates.

“With so many different players on the field, it’s a bit like an all-star game without an authoritative coach. There are differing rules of engagement, national approaches, and limits on what they want their warships to do.” Cosgriff said it’s a challenge “to have the right ship from the right navy in the right place at the right time to do what you want to do.”

Cosgriff is former commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command. He held a talk at the Middle East Institute, at which he addressed the possible courses of action which could be taken against maritime piracy in the nearly 400,000 square mile region along the Somali coast.

“Doing nothing, or being ineffective at what we do, strikes me as bad policy,” said the commander, who addressed five possible courses of action that could be taken to curb the lawlessness:

• Do Nothing: Companies which traffic goods off of the African Horn would pay ransoms and treat piracy as a cost of business.
• Arm the Crews: Ship crews would be expected to maintain their own security through hiring private security forces or arming their mariners.
• Flood the Zone: International naval coalitions and unofficial patchworks of navies “with significant maritime interests” would patrol the region.
• Go in on ground - Light: Tactical airstrikes and troops on the ground aimed at equipment and infrastructure within known pirate camps along the Somali coastline.
• Go in on ground - Heavy: Tactical airstrikes and troops on the ground to flush out the pirate camps, seize property, and not allow the pirates to bare the fruits of their actions.

Cosgriff emphasized the importance of a coordinated international response in whatever route was selected, because it is an “international problem in the great global commons known as the sea.” A coordinated response would provide a uniform framework in which to react to pirates when they engage in hostility, according to Cosgriff. He said that since the U.S. is a global maritime leader, it should take a leading role in the solution.

“Whatever lies ahead, we have to take care… that the cure is not worse than the disease,” he said.

Cosgriff acknowledged that piracy is a business, and doesn’t believe that it is rooted in simple poverty and desperation, although he acknowledged those as contributing factors. “The overall problem is that of organized criminal clans,” groups which he said, “try to extend seaward the rule of the gun which pertains in much of Somalia.” He continued, “in short, piracy pays.”

Somalia has faced ongoing violence and lawlessness since the government collapsed in 1991.

Somalia: A Pirate’s Paradise

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Piracy is nothing new in Somalia. Every day pirates run free off of Somalia’s nearly 2,000-mile coastline and find haven within this African country which is slightly smaller than Texas. The problem has long been of concern to the U.S. State Department and the United Nations, but it has been gaining special attention once again because of the targeting of American citizens. The hostage situation with American ship captain Richard Phillips caused a nation to hold its breath, and many were in shock when U.S. Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ) escaped a mortar attack aimed at his airplane in Mogadishu on Monday while the congressman was meeting with government officials.

Maritime piracy has been a lucrative business since the collapse of the Somali government in 1991 and in the thirteen governments to exist since. It can provide quick income for the uneducated and impoverished, and has become a fact of life for companies trading around the Horn of Africa.

The United States has not had full diplomatic ties with Somalia since 1991. Somalia now has a U.S. “Ambassador-at-large” with no formal office in the U.S. from which to work. The Ambassador-at-large, Abdi Awaleh Jama, believes that the violence comes from a “poverty of leadership” in Somalia. Jama said the leaders at the regional and national level don’t serve communal interests but rather favor specific clans or family members.

“The dominant paradigm now is the clan paradigm... not the nation paradigm,” Jama said. He continued, “When there is no law and order, you take the law into your own hands.” Jama said the natural resources in Somalia have been seized by certain clans and used to hold down opposition within the rest of the country.

Jama, who does not fault the sitting Somali president for the country’s condition, said that pirates flourish off the expansive coast because the rule of law has not existed in Somali society in the past decade. When such anarchy is combined with the overflowing poverty, a situation will develop where people will seize “any opportunity they have to make money,” said Jama.

Officials within the Somali government have defended the so-called pirates as being a “coast guard” who protect the country’s resources. Jama dismisses that claim.

“These are criminals who want to make quick money, and who want to just use force, in the name of saving Somalia,” he said. “They are only there to enrich themselves, and to use that gimmick that they are defending Somali resources, which is wrong.”

Joel Carny, an expert from Refugees International, said that Somalia “really hasn’t had a central government that has functioned in so long.” He believes this has led to “warlordism” and opportunity for clan-based regional politics to develop. He called Somalia “an environment in which everyone has to fend for themselves.”

According to Carny, approximately two million Somalis have been displaced due to the violence in the past decade and three million are in need of emergency assistance.

Somalia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Elmi Ahmed Duale, acknowledged in a phone conversation that the violence was taking place and said the government cannot hide it. He hopes for a resolution.

The international community has taken this issue very seriously. The United Nations has had peacekeepers in Somalia at various times since 1991, and most recently the African Union has dedicated resources through AMISOM, their official Mission to Somalia. In February 2009, the United Nations Security Council authorized AMISOM to stay in Somalia for another six months, which places peacekeepers on the ground through August. The United Nations says the goal of this mission is to help establish order and secure human rights.

Recent Somali elections were marked by violence to the point that they had to take place in neighboring Djibouti. Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was elected in January, and shortly thereafter, Ahmed appointed a new prime minister.

Carny is doubtful of the new government’s ability to establish order but thinks that the international community should give the new president a chance. Carney said, “Lets see if [the government] can establish a viable authority... that can at least establish security inside the capitol and then spread from there.” Carney said, however, that “anyone who’s pessimistic about Somalia is probably going to be right.”

Jama wants the United States to help Somalia build a “proper coast guard,” which would replace vigilantism that currently runs the shorelines.

Both Jama and Carny acknowledged that most of the social problems in Africa are rooted in the colonial past, but Carny believes that Africa must move on. “We’re not going to redraw the boundaries in Africa,” said Carny. He suggested that Somalia could be governed regionally through “some kind of Federalism,” as a credible solution for ethnically diverse nations prone to social conflict, civil war and genocide.

“For better or for worse, these countries have to live and work their way out of consequences. When you get good leadership at the national level... things can turn around fairly quickly,” Carny said.

Listen to the audio report here.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of post trial DNA testing?

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

The issue of post-DNA testing is not a new one and is certainly not a resolved one. Currently 44 out of 50 states permit post trial DNA testing.

Today, Georgetown University Law Center hosted a discussion that heard from legal experts and the personal experiences of those who have suffered the injustice of wrong-imprisonment and have since been released due to DNA clearance.

Martin Anderson who was exonerated in 2002, after serving 15 years in prison for rape, said: “A lot of people don’t realize it, but when you are convicted of a serious crime, your name, your family name, your whole life stop, there is nothing you can do....there is evidence to prove someone innocent but the state refused to have it tested and have it done...once the testing was done it excluded me as being the rapist of the crime in 1982, but it also proved who the real attacker was. Today he is now in prison, for the crime I have spent 20 years trying to prove my innocence for.”

The discussion centered around the Supreme Court case of the District Attorney’s Office v. William G. Osborne, which will begin trial on March 2. Osborne is appealing for a DNA test to be granted, in order to prove his innocence against rape and attempted murder charges that he was sentenced to in 1993 in the state of Alaska. Alaska, is currently one of the six states that does not allow post trial DNA evidence to be submitted. Mr. Osborne is filing his appeal for DNA testing under the civil rights act.

Also speaking at the discussion was Michele Mallin, a rape victim whose accused assailant was exonerated posthumously by DNA testing. Mallin identified who she thought was her assailant, Timothy Cole, twice. Cole died whilst serving time in prison and DNA taken from his body proved that he in fact had not raped Ms. Mallin.
Ms. Mallin thought that Cole’s conviction had been based on DNA and her statement, but later found out that the conviction had been based purely on her testimony. Ms Mallin is now campaigning to clear Cole’s name. Ms. Mallin’s real attacker is serving time in prison for two other sexually motivated attacks.

America’s legal system reviewed in light of Guantanamo

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about how the Bush Administration’s railed detainee policies have hurt the fight against terrorism. The witnesses discussed the lower credibility of the United States' action in Guantanamo Bay from a legal perspective.

Colonel Will Gunn, retired chief defense council for the Department of Defense office of military commissions, said that the government has taken several actions with respect to detainee policy in the post 9/11 era that have significantly “eroded this nation’s standing in terms of respect for human rights.” Gunn outlined several factors that show how the United States has done this through hiding prisoners, coercive interrogations, and an overall policy shift on Geneva Conventions.

“The system I encountered had several drawbacks which generated controversy, diminished the U.S.’s prestige at home and abroad, and fueled widespread perceptions that the system was unfair,” Gunn said. While some of the problems have been addressed by the Supreme Court, many still remain. Gunn recommended using the court martial system an federal courts to dispose of the cases of detainees that should be tried in a court of law.

David Rivkin, partner in the law firm Baker and Hostetler LLP, supported the Bush Administration’s actions in Guantanamo. He said that although members of Congress have “decried the detainee’s fate” at Guantanamo, few have offered suitable alternatives for the prisoners, so they must be keep there.

The individuals who crafted the policy in Guantanamo and the different legal aspects of the “war on terror” viewed the constitution as an obstacle and viewed the checks and balances of the U.S. government unnecessary, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. Martin said in order to restore America’s standing as an example of just law, it must reinstall due process of law and the right of habeas corpus for the detainees at Guantanamo.

"What should be done with the collected information?"

No answers were given when asked the following question: "What should be done with the collected information?"
The senate judiciary committee held a hearing on "National Security Letters (NSL): The Need for Greater Accountability and Oversight." the witnesses present were James A. Baker, former council for Intelligence Policy at the Department of justice, Gregory T. Nojeim, director of the Freedom, Security and Technology project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and lastly Michael J. Woods, former chief of National Security Law Unit at the Office of the General Counsel, FBI.

The chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), introduced the guests after each Senator present delivered their remarks and their opinions on the issue. In his opening statement, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who has introduced the National Security Letter Reform Act, blamed the Patriot Act for the misuse and abuse of the NSL by the FBi itself. He mentioned that the Patriot Act "expanded the NSL statutes to essentially grant the FBI a blank check to obtain sensitive information about innocent Americans."

James Barker, in his remarks, distinguished between two different kinds of dat collection. He called the first one "metadata", which is the collection of "non-content information". Metadata is not protected by the fourth Amendment and focuses on the whereabouts of the criminal. Whereas the "content information" is the collection of the substance of the information and it is protected by the fourth Amendment. in Baker's opinion, metadata is an important tool to start the investigation, rather than fully rely on it, in other words, it is the "bread and butter and not the main course or the desert."

Gregory T. Nojeim mentioned that the NSL legislation is a one way spree and "self-policing does no work." He continued by pointing that FISA is "quite permissive" of the FBI to act independently. Certain data are considered to be sensitive and others less sensitive, he highlighted the fact that there must be tools to protect the checks and balances.

Michael J. Woods offered his practical experience in the FBI and said that the development of technology has had a tremendous effect on the investigations and the handling of the Patriot Act.